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

Tue Jan 19 07:25:12 UTC 2021

Hello Steven.

That (on-road diagram 1057) is tagged as cycleway=shared_lane. It doesn't
serve any practical purpose except in the minds of councils. The router I
use ignores them.

Jon

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 01:29 Steven Hirschorn, <steven.hirschorn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was wondering what this "cycling infrastructure" would be tagged as?
> That's a bike symbol placed in the main northbound lane, no advisory
> or mandatory segregation? I was also wondering why the council
> bothered at all, what use is painting a bike symbol in a main traffic
> lane? Is it a legal requirement if a nominal bike route goes that way,
> or is there any evidence that road users are more aware of cyclists if
> they see a symbol painted in the road occasionally?
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tJ39xtdT9yB4qDUKxtfIdx
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 20:15, Jon Pennycook <jpennycook at bcs.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20210119/40b189ad/attachment-0001.htm>