[Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map

[rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com]

Hi All,

I would like to improve the guidance given on the UK Tagging Guidelines  
page in regards to how to map cycle paths. As a non-cyclist I would like  
some advise. So far my research has found:

1. Definitions:
* "Cycle Lane" - lane marked out by painted lines _within_ the carriageway.  
May be "mandatory" or "advisory".
* "Cycle Track" - a route other than within a carriageway - eg on a footway  
(legal term for pavement, rather than OSM highway=footway) adjacent to a  
carriageway, adjacent to the carriageway but separate from the footway  
(pavement), or on a route completely separate from a highway (eg a path  
through a park).

2. OSM tags:
In OSM we have highway=cycleway and we can also add cycleway=lane /  
cycleway=track / etc to any ways marked as highway=*.

3. Mapping practices:
Clearly a "cycle lane" should be tagged by adding cycleway=lane to the way  
represented by highway=*. Furthermore any "cycle tracks" that are on a  
route completely separate from a highway can be tagged as highway=cycleway  
(or highway=path, but lets shelve the Classic vs Alternative discussion for  
the moment).

This leaves "cycle tracks" that run alongside a highway but are not within  
the carriageway. How should they be tagged? Options are:

i) As a separate highway=cycleway (or path) with links back to the  
neighbouring roads whenever there is a 'connection' (eg a dropped kerb).
ii) Using cycleway=track on the highway=*.
iii) Both.

Advantages of (i) over (ii):
* When the cycle track is not within the carriageway you essentially have  
to decide whether to use it or not. Unlike lanes on a road you cannot  
simply switch back and forth easily due to kerbs.
* Can better represent the route of the cycle track (eg navigating over  
side roads).
* Will render easily without having to add complex rules to your rendering  
system.
* Perhaps easier to explain to a newcomer.
* Harder to be accidentally extended further than the cycle track actually  
goes.

Advantages of (ii) over (i):
* We do not tend to map individual pavements so why do it when there is a  
cycle track on them
* May appear less 'cluttered'
* Less work as there is no need to draw a separate way.
* Fewer ways and connecting nodes may make it easier to maintain and less  
prone to damage.
* Easier for routing software (for option i some rules will need to be  
added to tell the routing engine to prefer cycle tracks over adjacent roads  
/ a bicycle access tag would have to be added to the road to deter use).


So, over to you - thoughts? Statistics about current use in the UK?

Cheers,
Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20120516/aafc2ae6/attachment.html>