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

[Roland Swingler]

> Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all?

I could be wrong, but I think segregation=no is intended to be used when
the cycleway is shared with pedestrians.

R

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk> wrote:

> 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 <http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=16421>
> On 18 Jan 2021, 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/a00115ea/attachment.htm>