[OSM-talk-be] cycleways

Fri Jan 7 10:50:55 UTC 2022

Hi,

In particular cases adding a cycleway even if it is physically a cycle lane
can be usefull to pass essential information.

Some cyclists avoid cobble stones and sett.

Bergstraat is a road in cobble stone having an adjacent cyclelane.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/50.78425/5.29287

As touristic cycle routes are passing on the road, the sidewalk was
transformed into a cycle lane.

So I drew a separated “highway=cycleway” alongside the road.

As far as I know, a tag at the highway level to add a cycle lane cannot
pass this information to the end user.

Raf

Op wo 5 jan. 2022 om 14:07 schreef Matthieu <matthieu at gaillet.be>:

>
> I would personally look a how it Is done elsewhere. And for that matters,
> I guess that NL is probably the place to look at. As far as I can tell the
> segregated cycleways are always mapped separately.
>
> The wiki explains clearly when to not use them :
>
> *Cycling infrastructure that is an inherent part of a road - particularly
> "cycle lanes" which are a part of the road - should usually not be tagged
> as a separate cycleway, but by adding the cycleway=* tag to an
> existing highway=* instead.*
>
> On 5 Jan 2022, at 13:30, Jan Cnops <jan.cnops at scarlet.be> wrote:
>
> 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
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=cycleway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway>. The
> alternative is to add a cycleway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway>=track
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dtrack> 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 list
>
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-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/20220107/f05d663f/attachment.htm>