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

[Jon Pennycook]

Segregated=no is for off-road shared use paths. I am trying to establish a
way ti describe the *type* of segregation - we have sets of tags that
potentially describe cycleways (whether path or lane based) using the same
tags whether they are separated from non-cyclists or separated by paint.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 19:38 Roland Swingler, <roland at beeline.co> 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> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210118/6f900373/attachment-0001.htm>