[talk-au] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths

[Warin]

On 3/09/2015 1:35 PM, Chris wrote:
> Hello, I am new to this group and have a question about pedestrian and 
> bicycle shared paths. I can't find anything in the archives.
>
> In NSW, shared paths fall into two broad categories:
>
> (1) Sidewalk footpaths that have been designated as shared paths. In 
> urban areas these often have poor continuity and high friction (i.e., 
> high pedestrian volumes, lots of street furniture or other 
> obstructions, inadequate width, abutting property entrances), e.g., 
> the Victoria Road shared path in Rozelle 
> (http://bikesydney.org/new10/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/BIKESydney_representation_of_City_West_Link_Cy-6.jpg).
>
> 2) Purpose-built shared paths with good continuity, generous width and 
> minimal friction, e.g., M7 shared path 
> (http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/cmsAdmin/uploads/WestlinkM70210.jpg).
>
> These two types of shared path offer quite different levels of 
> utility/comfort/speed to bicycle riders.
>
> However, following the Australian Tagging Guidelines, these should be 
> tagged in exactly the same way (highway=cycleway, foot=designated). So 
> how can a bicycle routing algorithm take into account the differing 
> levels of utility/generalised cost?
>
> In the US, I understand that (1) would be tagged 
> highway=footway,bicycle=yes, while (2) would be tagged 
> highway=cycleway, foot=designated, making it possible to distinguish 
> between them.
>
>

The width can be tagged - this already exists but is not in frequent use.
You could take the view of the minimum effective width along the route 
(way) being the effective width.

Traffic volumes is not something OSM tags (for vehicles nor pedestrians).

The crossing of entries is something that can be tagged - add ways with 
highway=service, service=driveway.

------------------------------
Distinguishing between these things is up to the render (the map maker) 
rather than the mapper ... so even if tagged differently, correctly .. 
the rendering may not resolve the difference. There are a number of 
different renders - some of them bicycle specific. Some renders display 
highway=footway the same as highway=footway,bicycle=yes... some 
highway=cycleway the same as highway=cycleway, foot=designated.
--------------------
Personally I prefer the US method of tagging.
I have also come across a mapper who has used cyclelane=yes where there 
is no cycle lane to mark routes used by cyclists...
I would much rather see that tagged as a route, though there are some 
who demand that these only be tagged if they are 'officially recognised'.
As OZ has less 'officially recognised' than say the UK .. I can see no 
reason why these bicycle routes cannot be marked out as they are 'used 
by cyclists'.
This is much more truthfull than marking them with infrastructure that 
does not exist.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20150903/4f6aadd1/attachment.html>