[Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

I'm not saying it's terrible but as you note it's not exactly an optimum
example of good mapping.

Just as with roads, I tend to view cycleway surface tags as distinctly
optional/low priority where they confirm to the default of being asphalt
and of great importance where they deviate from that default.

The above are just personal niggles, but we really do need to beclear at
this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 20:14 Gareth L, <o.i at live.co.uk> wrote:

> I do have to say that surface info is very useful. A lot of cycleways have
> gravel sections and that can be no fun on, say, a Brompton bike with 16”
> wheels.
>
> Much like pavements, I’d start my focus on the details which are not what
> you might expect, like where a road doesn’t have a pedestrian walkway at
> all, or only on one side. Ultimately, it’s all useful data.
>
> The embankment example makes some sense to me, although that level of
> Cycle infrastructure (cycle superhighways) is seldom seen outside of the
> capital. Segregated and sidewalk tag seems redundant as the footpath is
> mapped as a separate way, but they were added at version 1 when the other
> data may not have been there?
>
> Gareth
>
> On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:49, Adam Snape <adam.c.snape at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
> marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
>
> I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem
> garbled at points....
>
> Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
> physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than
> the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?
>
> The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a
> separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no,
> segregated=yes, sidewalk=right.
>
> Kind regards,,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, <
> talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> "Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no"
>> is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
>> I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
>> oneway tag to be always present
>>
>> I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
>> (I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
>> as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
>> Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.
>>
>>
>> Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o.i at LIVE.CO.UK:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle
>> infrastructure.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure
>>
>>
>>
>> Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have
>> avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter
>> roads.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Gareth
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20200714/a6903a69/attachment.htm>