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

Chris Hodges chris at c-hodges.co.uk
Mon Jan 18 19:31:59 UTC 2021


Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is presumably paint. 

The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason. 

I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help anyone. 

Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added. That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit planned near me. 

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On 18 Jan 2021, 16:30, 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> 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/edf17390/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list