[Talk-dk] Cykelstier - København
alex.hunziker at gmail.com
Tir Nov 17 14:18:03 GMT 2009
> Bør nogen gå et niveau højere op i systemet, hvis der skal være konsensus om cycleway=....?
I asked in the IRC channel, if somebody feels like reading through
the discussion, see below. In short, I don't get the impression that
there really is a consensus on that matter...
<diverse_izzue> hi all. we have a dispute on the danish mailing list
about cycleways in cities. it's about whether they should be tagged as
part of the road, or whether there should be make a separate way for
this, even if the cycleway is following a road. is there a consensus
<avar> diverse_izzue: If it's a seperate way then draw a seperate way
<JonathanB> diverse_izzue: are they physically separate tracks, or
just painted lanes?
<diverse_izzue> avar, what's the definition of separate way?
<JonathanB> diverse_izzue: separated by more than a bit of white
<diverse_izzue> in the city of copenhagen, most cyclelanes are
directly next to the street, sometimes just painted, oftentimes some
5-10 cm higher, like a boardwalk
<-- chillly has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
<diverse_izzue> JonathanB, avar, have a look at the cyclemap for
copenhagen to get an idea. recently somebody changed almost all
cyclepaths to separate ways, that how the dispute started
the person claims that this was the standard way of doing it in other
<JonathanB> diverse_izzue: From your description that sounds wrong.
<RichardF> if it's just painted, it should be highway=whatever,
if it's a separate path, you can _either_ have highway=whatever,
cycleway=track; or do separate ways
<JonathanB> diverse_izzue: Here's one test: What happens when the
street/cycle track crosses a side street?
<diverse_izzue> JonathanB, go on... i don't get it
<JonathanB> diverse_izzue: I'm asking you. If there's a sidestreet to
the one with the cycle lane/way, who gets right of way? Do the rules
for the cyclists differ from those of motorised traffic on the main
<diverse_izzue> JonathanB, traffic coming out from the side street is
expected to yield to bike traffic. but then it's expected to yield to
car traffic on that same road, too...
<JonathanB> So the rules are the same for all types of traffic?
I'd say that means it's highway=* cycleway=lane, then.
<diverse_izzue> JonathanB, thanks, I'll report that back to the
One argument of the person doing all this was that the current
rendering is not sufficient e.g. when there's a cycleway only on one
side of the road. is there work ongoing in mapnik to improve that?
<-- artem has quit (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
<JonathanB> diverse_izzue: Poor rendering isn't a reason to tag
incorrectly. As for whether it's being worked on, by who? The person
complaining about the rendering is welcome to come up with their own
<diverse_izzue> JonathanB, my point exactly
<zere> diverse_izzue: there's no work needed in mapnik - take a look
at http://opencyclemap.org/ which uses mapnik and draws cycleways as
(i think) blue casings
* Welshie just got asked directions in the street to somewhere that
was really obscure, and managed to give directions, only because I'd
mapped it in Openstreetmap just a few months ago.
<EdLoach> http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/cycleway/#values suggests some
people have added cycleway=lane_left/left/right/track_left/track_right
and other variations.
To indicate where the lane is only on one side.
<zere> e.g: on this segment of upper ground:
<diverse_izzue> zere, there are problems for oneway roads, where the
blue line is drawn on both sides
<RichardF> Don't Tag For The Renderer!
map it correctly. Then bug the Mapnik/OpenCycleMap devs to render the
<EdLoach> It would be interesting to see examples of where in other
European Countries separate ways are being used...
<-- milliams has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
<RichardF> I generally prefer to use separate ways rather than
EdLoach edward Edgemaster
<diverse_izzue> EdLoach, Amsterdam it seems for example
<RichardF> (parallel way function ftw)
RichardF Richlv Richard_B
<diverse_izzue> RichardF, what's the advantage of that in your
--> milliams (~Milliams at ortler.csc.warwick.ac.uk) has joined #osm
<Richlv> well, that does allow for a more precise mapping
<-- Reedy has quit (Quit: Leaving)
RichardF Richlv Richard_B
<EdLoach> And RichardF is a great fan of micromapping everything
<Richlv> especially if you have high quality ortophoto available
<diverse_izzue> Richlv, but it clutters the map without really adding
more information. besides its much more work because one has to add
every traffic light, ped-xing, ... to the cycleway was well
<RichardF> diverse_izzue: I like it because you can easily map things
which are on the cycle-path but not on the road: gates, etc.
<Richlv> diverse_izzue, sure, but so does every detail :)
<Richlv> i'd say it's worth only doing for fairly well mapped areas
<diverse_izzue> So, in brief, there seems to be no consensus on that
<RichardF> diverse_izzue: also, the end-user wants to know whether the
route is "on-road" or "off-road" (at least in Britain, where the roads
are horrible and drivers behave badly towards cyclists). Mapping as a
separate off-road way makes that clearer
RichardF Richlv Richard_B
<diverse_izzue> RichardF, yes but that is what lane/track are for
<RichardF> if you look at www.sustrans.org.uk (the UK's National Cycle
Network charity), they do the same. Cyclepath routes are mapped as off-
road and coloured accordingly
* JP80 witnessed an argument between a cyclist and a car just 5
<Socks> (...in Britain, where the off-road tracks are poorly
maintained, and likely to be full of glass, etc)
<RichardF> Socks: s/Britain/Oxford/ . Move somewhere less shitty :p
<Richlv> RichardF brought up a good point about features un cycleway
only. additionally, what if a cycleway parts from the road for 20
meters (to go around some obstance, for example) ?
<JonathanB> RichardF: What diverse_izzue appears to be describing
isn't a segregated cycle lane, it's just an extra bit of road.
<Socks> RichardF: Where sweeps off-road cycletracks on a regular
<RichardF> Socks: even Burton-on-Trent does that!
(well, they do on the one I use, anyway)
<diverse_izzue> is this channel logged?
<Richlv> we had a cycleway covered with red colour some years ago.
unfortunately, the colour was _extremely_ slippy when wet. great fun,
<RichardF> Socks: of course, in places where the natives are more
civilised than in Oxford, the problem of glass on the path occurs less
anyway. Cambridge for example <g,d&r>
<RichardF> JonathanB, diverse_izzue: well, if you're describing
something that isn't _truly_ off-road, I suggest you need new tags
which don't exist yet
<Socks> Probably true.
See also: roads being better designed than off-road cycle facilities
<diverse_izzue> RichardF, how is a boardwalk-type cycleway not
described by the tag "track"?
<RichardF> I have no idea what boardwalk means
<-- kay_D has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
<diverse_izzue> RichardF, the place where pedestrians walk
<-- rramthun has quit (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
<diverse_izzue> which also follows a road, but is a little bit higher
same style, but for bikes
<RichardF> oh, you mean pavement :)
<RichardF> no, pavement. OSM's lingua franca is British English ;)
<diverse_izzue> boardwalk seems to be american english only
sorry, not a native speaker :-)
<EdLoach> I'd be tempted to use a separate way for the cycleway if it
isn't a lane marked on the road.
<TomH> boardwalk to my mind is specifically one made of boards - ie a
raised wooden path
<RichardF> like I said earlier - "if it's a separate path, you can
_either_ have highway=whatever, cycleway=track; or do separate ways".
I'd use the separate way for reasons explained previously
More information about the Talk-dk