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

[Simon Still]

Types of cycle track separator 

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


> On 18 Jan 2021, at 17:05, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not surprised that orcas might deter people from venturing into cycle lanes, but suspect that these are not large predatory whales. Enlightenment please :-)
> 
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 16:32, Jon Pennycook <jon.pennycook at gmail.com <mailto: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 <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/20210118/6ae2689f/attachment.htm>