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

[Jon Pennycook]

The photo at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dtrack is
what I would call a shared use pavement.  This is what I consider a
cycleway=track to look like:-
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yy7FrJIZcEyXft1CqkJaaS
(although I actually drew it on OSM as a separate cycleway because it has
traffic calming and crossings that don't apply to the road).

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 17:43, Jon Pennycook <jon.pennycook at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20210118/6c75e4df/attachment.htm>