[OSM-talk-be] cycleways

[Jan Cnops]

Hi,
Okay, it is a contentious issue so here is the oppposite position:
Drawing cycleways separately destroys very important information:
namely the link between the cycleway and the main road. They are useful
in situations where the cycleway diverges from the road, including the
case of crossroads with separate cycle crossings and the like, but
never alongside a main road. I know of no application for which
cycleways are relevant which is not seriously hampered by these
separate cycleways. If, e.g. , we ever want to have a really good
bicycle routing system based on OSM we have to find a way to get rid of
these seperately drawn cycleways. Other applications are equally
impaired by separate ways.  I know e.g. the Fietserbond uses OSM to
make maps of problematic situations. This is very difficult with
separately drawn ways  (if you do not see the problem, try to define a
Turbo Overpass query which shows all secundary roads which form part of
the cycle node network).
If I recall correctly the wiki says somewhere that adjacent cycleways
should be tagged. In my opinion drawing cycleways separately  is only
okay if there is really a separation, like a ditch or so. There is a
tag to indicate that the cycleway runs right of parked cars, so even
that should  not be a reason for separate drawing (on a sidenote: this
situation is relevant, so indicating it is useful).
Mappers are misled because they look at areal images up close into
thinking that is it important that the line drawing of a cycleway
should be dead flush with the areal image. But the most important data
are those relationg the cycleway to the main road.
And don't get me started on the numerous errors introduced by separate
mapping. I have had to add connecting ways on literallly hunderds of
crossroads so that the map is at least correct in showing which ways
cyclists can go. Little known fact: the OSRM bicycle router, available
on the main map webpage, deliberately makes errors (like ignoring
bicycle=use_sidepath). The reason: this reduces the impact of erroneous
mappings with separate cycleways. Actually, I sometimes map cycleways
separately even although I know that it does not improve the map. Why?
Because I know that if I don't do it somebody else will, with a high
probability of errors confounding the routers.
vg,
JanFi
Marc Gemis schreef op di 04-01-2022 om 06:25 [+0100]:
> IMHO, separate cycleways give a bit more detail than the tag on the
> main road, e.g. exact location, showing the extra turns, possibility
> to show that they are protected by an hedge, etc,One should never
> remove them. Of course cylelanes are not mapped as separate lines.
> Since the separate ways give more information, it is OK for me to
> replace tags on the main road with a separate way.
> 
> regards
> 
> m
> 
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be <
> talk-be at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Some people prefer the cycleway=* tags and even remove the separate
> > highway=cycleway.
> > Others prefer the detail of separate highway=cycleway and remove
> > the cycleway=* tags.
> > Which means that at some places the separate cycleways appear,
> > disappear, reappear, redisappear etc.
> > So what are the opinions about cycleways these days? Or is this all
> > there is to say about it:
> > "There are two ways to model cycle tracks. One possibility is to
> > draw separate ways along the roadway which are tagged as
> > highway=cycleway. The alternative is to add a cycleway=track
> >  tag to the existing way. Both methods each have their pros and
> > cons. 
> > Notably, a separately tagged cycleway generally allows to capture
> > more 
> > detail, while adding a single tag to an existing way takes much
> > less 
> > time and in many cases can be as accurate. Both methods are in use 
> > today, and there is discussion about when to prefer which method."
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > StijnRR
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > 
> > Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> > 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20220105/ac3d5a74/attachment.htm>