[OSM-talk-be] cycleways

Fri Jan 7 13:45:39 UTC 2022

Hi,

I have no real preference between one or the other. I think it is much
harder to do things right with separate ways though. For example, a
cycleway-track that is only seperated by a boardstone implies that you can
make a u-turn or take a left at any point. I don't see how you can map that
on a seperate way.

Then it also makes relations for routes more complicated, and it means you
have to split private driveways along the cycleway.

It's not that hard to map a lot of details on a single way. For the surface
example mentioned, there's
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:surface
And there's plenty of tags to describe the division between road and cycle
lane as well.

I think the biggest disadvantage is that it goes against the trend to
micromap geometries, and might thus get replaced over time with seperate
ways. This is also an issue where people map the actual road surfaces as
polygons. I think there we need a clear separation between roads as a
network, and roads as a type of land cover/ land use. Maybe something
similar could work for cycle lanes as well.

I also think it's pretty clear that only cycle tracks can ever be mapped
separately. My one rule of thumb is if the geometry of the way is really
significantly different from the main road.

It is indeed a little annoying that separate cycleways cannot be queried by
an Overpass query. For an analysis for Gents Milieu Front, we worked around
that quite handily because of the use_sidepath tag. You do need an advanced
geospatial algorithm to find the actual cycleway that is mapped separately,
but an advanced data-user can do that. In the end, we don't map for the end
user (yeah, we try to make their lives easier, but not at any cost).

More importantly, I think we have to accept the lack of consensus. Changing
from separate to on-the-way and vice versa should never be done ONLY
because you prefer a certain tagging style. Do it when correcting mistakes,
or if you're adding a lot more cycleway detail. If you can see that someone
has put a lot of effort in current mapping, contact them first. If you see
that that same someone has made a lot of errors, explain those errors -
otherwise they might continue making them! Inactive mappers won't reply, so
you might not bother there. If active mappers ignore you though, they HAVE
to read and reply. We can even enforce that when it's really needed.

All the best,
Joost

Op vr 7 jan. 2022 11:55 schreef Raf De Ryck <raf.de.ryck at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220107/3013df39/attachment.htm>