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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin - CycleStreets wrote:
> What are people's thoughts about these suggested new tags?

This is great - thanks for putting in the hard yards on the tagging. A few
comments:

> A new tag, asl_position={left|right|center} is proposed.

Yes, although the lingua franca of OSM is British English so it should be
"centre".

> cycleway:track=hybrid is proposed as a backwards-compatible 
> addition that elaborates on cycleway=track.

That makes sense when it's mapped as cycleway=track on a single road
centreline. I can however envisage hybrid cycleways often being mapped as a
separate highway=cycleway, particularly when it's part of a continuous route
which is sometimes kerbed and sometimes hybrid. "highway=cycleway;
cycleway:track=hybrid" is a slightly unintuitive tag combination. It's not a
massive deal but I wonder whether "cycleway_type=hybrid" might be better
here.

> A new tag cycleway:lane={mandatory|advisory} is proposed as a 
> backwards-compatible addition that elaborates on cycleway=lane.

Strong preference _against_ this. "mandatory" is UK highway-speak but likely
to be very counterintuitive to anyone who doesn't know what TSRGD stands
for. To the non-initiate, it implies that use of the cycleway is mandatory
for cyclists (a la bicycle=use_sidepath), which it isn't.

There was a long thread about this over on forum.osm.org:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61427 . My preference is to
map the meaning ("cars are/aren't allowed in the bike lane") by using
traditional access tags: cycleway:motor_vehicle=no,
cycleway:motor_vehicle=yes. But have a read of the thread and see what you
think.

> A new tag cycleway:sideroad_continuity=yes is proposed as a 
> backwards-compatible addition that elaborates on cycleway={lane|track}.

Good concept but the tag is a little wordy. I wonder if a simple node at the
junction tagged with "priority=cycleway" would be less verbose, and also
permit "priority=road" for those situations where the sideroad has priority
(this is sadly probably implicit, but it's good to tag out ambiguity).

> Cycle parking on/off carriageway [...] A simple new tag carriageway=yes is
> proposed.

Looks good.

> A new tag bicycle_parking=cyclehoop is proposed.

"Cyclehoop" is a brand name rather than a design, and
bicycle_parking=cyclehoop is a bit tautologous. bicycle_parking=hoop would
be simpler.

> A new tag traffic_signals:bicycle_early_release=yes is proposed.

Again, rather wordy, but I can't immediately think of a more concise
alternative.

> A possible but nasty workaround would be e.g. bicycle=dismount_uk 
> representing the UK meaning of a Cyclists dismount sign.

That is _definitely_ nasty. :) bicycle=advisory_dismount would be more
universal.

> • Bicycle parking stand types: The CID has several variations on 
> the Sheffield stand [...] downstream users of the data would not 
> consider the difference important – they simply care mostly 
> whether the frame is lockable or not.

It's perhaps a bit more nuanced than that - as a cyclist I find the type of
stand has a big impact on whether it's lockable or not (around town I
generally ride a Bike Friday New World Tourist, which has a weird little
locking point, and use a mini D-lock; not all stands co-operate!). But I'd
agree this isn't really a priority in any case.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html