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

[Chris Hodges]

The difference is nice in theory. Mandatory ones seem to pop up where there's more loading ("I'm not parked"/"only here for a minute") as well as being widely ignored. I wouldn't suggest even a novice routed on that basis - the general state of the road/traffic is much more important and harder to capture. 

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On 18 Jan 2021, 16:43, at 16:43, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
>On 18/01/2021 16:11, Chris Hodges 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
>
>The most obvious one is that advisory lanes can be full of parked cars.
>
>  Theoretically, at least, there could also be moving cars in them.  A 
>mandatory lane should only contain cycles, so should be a much better 
>option.
>
>(I think it is fairly well known that mandatory lanes require traffic 
>regulations orders, with associated public consultations, so advisory 
>ones are used, as a sop to cyclists, without any real costs except
>those 
>of the paint for the lines, and for the signs.)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20210118/6cef1d34/attachment.htm>