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

[Andrew Chadwick]

On 16/05/12 16:55, rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com wrote:

> 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 - e.g. 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
> (e.g. a path through a park).

Looks like a good start. "Cycle Track" is also the legal term. Would
designation coding be appropriate, assuming designation_codes are
derivable from official sources? On pavements, there's a distinction
cyclists and sign-makers make between segregated (from pedestrians,
paint or low kerb divider) and shared-use (shared with pedestrians, no
dividers). Any more?

> 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=*.

There's a wealth of discussion out there regarding how to tag
side-specific lanes or tracks. Are cycleway:left=* and cycleway:right=*
winning out?

> 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' (e.g. a dropped kerb).
> ii) Using cycleway=track on the highway=*.
> iii) Both.

Personally, I'd say either (i) or (ii); both are valid, provide lots of
rendering options, and should route correctly provided both systems link
up. (i) is most appropriate in places with good aerial imagery, and
solves the side-of-road issue neatly. Also it should be done in areas where

  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing

are being attempted, just for continuity. (ii) is a decent enough
approach even in micromapped areas as a first stab at getting a track
onto the map, particularly if you do the :left or :right thing.

However (iii) seems like mapping the same thing twice, which is
generally a bad idea:

  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

-- 
Andrew Chadwick