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

[Chris Hodges]

That would seem reasonable - except that we'd still need to consider how 
it's segregated from the motor traffic, which could be different.  I can 
think of cases where it's:
pedestrians - kerb - bikes - paint - cars
and
pedestrians - paint - bikes - kerb - cars
as well as
pedestrians - paint - anyone on wheels
and the common
pedestrians+bikes - kerb - cars

On 18/01/2021 19:36, Roland Swingler wrote:
> > 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>             > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Talk-GB mailing list
>             Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>             https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Talk-GB mailing list
>         Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>