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

Tue Jan 19 07:31:51 UTC 2021

See also
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-December/025685.html

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 07:29 Jon Pennycook, <jon.pennycook at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20210119/7c6ff026/attachment-0001.htm>