[talk-au] parking and bike lane

[David Wales]

I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.

On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <mapping at consebt.de> wrote:
>Hi Andrew,
>thanks for all these hints. I probably should have read up on the tags
>a
>bit better. A case of too late mapping.
>
>I've followed your suggestions and added the tags up and downstream of
>the roundabout with this changeset
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78947187
>
>I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the
>cycle
>way and the roundabout. And what about sidewalk? I'm inclined to map it
>as a separate way.
>
>Cheers,
>Seb
>
>On 28/12/19 6:37 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> 1. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes is says "Use
>> the lanes=* key to tag how many traffic lanes there are on a highway
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway>." and "Count excludes
>> cycle lanes.". So in this case there are only 2 traffic lanes. So
>> simply use:
>>
>> lanes=2
>>
>> 2. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway it says
>> "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway" Since both sides
>> have a cyclelane you can just use a single tag:
>>
>> cycleway=lane
>>
>> Using both cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:right=lane can be
>interpreted
>> as the same thing, and some people would use cycleway:both=lane which
>> also means the same thing. My preference is to keep things simple by
>> using cycleway=lane since having 3 different ways of tagging the same
>> thing just makes it harder for beginners to contribute because
>they'll
>> be left confused on the difference, whereas if we're consistent with
>> the simplest form, it's best.
>>
>> 3. Once you've used lanes=2 then access:lanes, bicycle:lanes,
>> cycleway:lanes are no longer needed here.
>>
>> 4. lcn=yes only if this is part of a signposted cycle route (ie. if
>> there are way marking signs showing this is a route)
>>
>> 5. Parking lane tagging looks good, but again once you've used
>lanes=2
>> then you don't need parking:lanes=lane|||||lane.
>>
>> 6. I'd also use cycleway:lane=doorzone to indicate this cyclelane is
>> in the door zone and so mostly I'd just ride outside the cyclelane in
>> the traffic lane anyway... The tag isn't well documented yet but has
>> have some
>> use https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=doorzone
>>
>> 7. You could also say surface=asphalt, lit=yes, overtaking=no if you
>> wanted to add more tags.
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 01:12, Sebastian Spiess <mapping at consebt.de
>> <mailto:mapping at consebt.de>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     I'm considering to add the following tags to Griffin Road (and
>others)
>>     bit since JOSM is not rendering as I expect it, I thought I ask
>if
>>     this
>>     combination makes even sense.
>>
>>     Road example is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171171120
>and
>>     https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1R1u3k4BQ6dsIscMwSfDpg
>>
>>     The road is essentially parking lane, bike lane, 2 lane road,
>bike
>>     lane,
>>     parking lane. Tag wise this leads me to:
>>
>>     access:lanes=|no|||no|
>>     bicycle:lanes=|designated|||designated|
>>     cycleway:lanes=|lane|||lane|
>>     cycleway:left=lane
>>     cycleway:right=lane
>>     highway=secondary
>>     lanes=6
>>     lcn=yes
>>     maxspeed=50
>>     name=Griffin Road
>>     parking:condition:both=free
>>     parking:lane:both:parallel=on_street
>>     parking:lane:both=parallel
>>     parking:lanes=lane|||||lane
>>
>>     what are your thoughts?
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Talk-au mailing list
>>     Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20191228/e0f5cbf6/attachment.html>