[Talk-GB] New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Simon Still simon.still at gmail.com
Mon Jan 18 16:41:39 UTC 2021


I think the Wiki is fairly up to date on this stuff -= https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks>

A painted lane (whether dotted or solid) is 

cycleway=lane


If it is separated from traffic in some way it becomes 

Cycleway=track

You can then add detail of the form of separation

Cycleway:track=kerb


There was discussion on this list a while back to try to standardise the types of protection - 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VL0MmHJoapd4JRgDhow0el2H06IJNsK-8KycxtWSaEw/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VL0MmHJoapd4JRgDhow0el2H06IJNsK-8KycxtWSaEw/edit?usp=sharing>

Needs moving to wiki from the google doc. 

> I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones


I read some research recently that both are less safe than doing nothing.  Till try to dig it out. 


> On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <jon.pennycook at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.
> 
> I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <chris at c-hodges.co.uk <mailto:chris at c-hodges.co.uk>> wrote:
> TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory 
> and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to 
> drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact 
> mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's 
> just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.
> 
> (Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should 
> be removed to benefit cyclists)
> 
> On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> > ...
> > It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are 
> > mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot 
> > recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there 
> > are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane 
> > landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb <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/20210118/a17d11c2/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list