[OSM-talk-be] cycleways

Fri Jan 7 22:23:13 UTC 2022

Hi,
As Joost Schouppe already remarked: there is a cycleway:surface tag for
that.
As a matter of fact: I know of several ways with cobblestones and
cycleway=track, and only one of them, a stretch 15 meters long in
Zwijnaarde, has cycleway:surface=cobblestone (or sett, if you prefer).
So I configured the router I normally use (Routino) to simply ignore
the cobblestone surface if there is a cycleway=track tag.
Greetings,
JanFi
Raf De Ryck schreef op vr 07-01-2022 om 11:50 [+0100]:
> 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=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
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 
> 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/20220107/fdf3ad18/attachment-0001.htm>