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

[Steve Dobson]

On 16/05/12 17:55, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
>> 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.

As a cyclist with a Garman linking the cycle{way/path}s to the
neighboring roads is essential.  I had to spend some time a while back
linking type cycleways to the roads around my town where they crossed
roads in order to get the routing to work on my Garman.

Steve
-- 
Steve "Dobbo" Dobson