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

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 3 05:22:59 UTC 2015


I agree with what Warin said, but perhaps footway=sidewalk
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk could be
added as a tag for case (1), since these are basically sidewalks which
have been repurposed as shared sidewalk/cycleway?

On 3 September 2015 at 13:35, Chris <chris2037 at gmail.com> 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.
>
> Chris Standen



More information about the Talk-au mailing list