[Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping

Wulf4096 osmgb at wulf.eu.org
Wed Oct 2 03:21:22 UTC 2019

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 15:45:04 +0100, Mike Baggaley wrote:
> I would prefer not to see cycleway:lane=mandatory as this suggests that cyclists have to use the lane when set. In the UK, the significance of the solid white line separating a cycle lane and main carriageway is that motor vehicles are not allowed to use the cycle lane, but cyclists can use either the cycle lane or main carriageway. I would only want to see mandatory used if there is also a separate sign prohibiting cyclists from the road (and I am not sure whether any of these exist). I suggest cycleway:lane={exclusive|advisory} which are existing tags according to the wiki. Note that UK cycle lanes can also be used by pedestrians, so are not strictly exclusive to cyclists.
> Cheers,
> Mike
> >• Mandatory/Advisory Cycle Lane: OSM has no differentiation between 
> >mandatory (solid white line) and advisory (dashed white line) lane, 
> >probably because this distinction is rare elsewhere in the world. A new tag 
> >cycleway:lane={mandatory|advisory} is proposed as a backwards-compatible 
> >addition that elaborates on cycleway=lane. This would be useful for routing 
> >engines, who could infer a level of commitment to cyclists at each such 
> >location.
> >https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#clt_mandat

in Germany we've got "Radfahrstreifen" (solid line) which are
additionally marked by bicycle signs. Only cyclists may use those, and
the sign forbids cyclists to use the main carriageway, unless they've
got a reason to.

And we've got "Schutzstreifen" (dashed line). Legally, from the view of
a cyclist, those marking don't exist, as they don't impose any rules on
cyclists (this has been ruled by court).  Other traffic may not use the
dashed lanes unless they've got a reason to.

So I guess it's similar markings and rules?

When tagging, the only distinction is in "cycleway:right:traffic_sign":
"DE:237" vs. "DE:340". That needs better tagging in my opinion.

I strongly object against using words like "mandatory" or "compulsory"
when tagging: Nobody is legally required to use those lanes. One can
always mutate to a pedestrian, turn around, or find another way. What it
really means is: "Do not use the main carriageway unless you have to".
And for this we've already got a widely used tag:
"bicycle=use_sidepath". Currently the tag is only used where OSM has two
separate ways, but I don't see any good reason not to tag
"bicycle=use_sidepath" + "cycleway:right=lane" on the same way.

This still doesn't distinguish if and how *other* traffic may use those
lanes. "cycleway:*:lane={exclusive|advisory}" sounds like a reasonable
tagging scheme to me:

Use "cycleway:*:lane={exclusive|advisory}" as suggested by Mike,
and one may use "bicycle=use_sidepath" to state that cycling
on the main carriageway should be avoided.


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list