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

Jon Pennycook jon.pennycook at gmail.com
Mon Jan 18 17:43:07 UTC 2021


Orcas, like wands, are a type of light segregation for on-road cycle lanes.
They are part-way between paint and hard segregation.  I've been using
cycleway=track for hard segregation.  I still think there is merit in
describing how the segregation is achieved in both cases, since having
collapsible wands on a 50mph road is only slightly better than paint
(better visibility, drivers want to avoid getting their doors scratched),
but having something like kerbs offer greater protection, and concrete
blocks offer even more protection.

A number of people use cycleway=track to describe a shared use pavement
(I've had a number of my shared use pavements - highway=cycleway - removed
from OSM and all their detail replaced with a generic cycleway=track on the
road), There's a huge difference between
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Miscellaneous S3/S4 (bicycles
allowed on the pavement, affected by crossings of side roads) and a
protected cycle lane/track (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_tracks T1-T4 or
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks, usually
better sight lines and higher possible speed), but each appear to use the
same tags so a router can't tell the difference.

Light segregation:-
https://www.westberkshirespokes.org/tag/orca/ (first picture shows wands,
second picture shows an orca) or
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/eS9wnWLNLSmbGnBhEHIC0P

Hard segregation:-
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ZrRBp6HtCW2n0MKlwr3kEm (for a short
distance) or https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/l5WHuPCK5HRDs2G2ablx66

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 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>
> 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> 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
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20210118/228c6429/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list