[Talk-GB] Tagging rules for cycling in pedestrian areas and beyond

Jon Pennycook jpennycook at bcs.org.uk
Tue Nov 9 21:30:58 UTC 2021


I think surface, smoothness, tracktype, segregated, lit,
width/est_width/cycleway:width/cycleway:est_width, lanes are all important,
where applicable. It's no good if a cycle lane is <1.5m wide, or a shared
use path <2.5m wide, for example. Also, take into account maxspeed and
highway type - a 60mph unclassified road is probably quieter than a 30mph A
road.

I don't think there was any cycling infrastructure in Leicester when I
lived there. Trying to move from the inner to the outer lane on the oneway
system where there were three or more lanes was always fun.

It's a pity that the scheme couldn't use an existing UK-based cycling
journey planner - I think there are at least two.


On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, 20:46 Chris Hodges, <chris at c-hodges.co.uk> wrote:

> I can second all of what Rob said .
>
> I was going to write something similar though probably less eloquent  on
> highway=path and on PRoWs. There may also be a few permissive paths to
> consider, and bridleways etc. may in practice be tagged
> bicycle=designated or =yes pretty much interchangeably.
>
> I push the limits of what's rideable on a touring bike, but even I would
> assume that a bridleway (or byway) isn't good to route other cyclists
> down unless it has a tracktype and/or surface to give some indication of
> suitability. Note that we can have highway=track (etc.) +
> designation=public_bridleway (etc.) even without necessarily having
> bicycles=designated.  Hopefully this is less of an issue in a city, but
> I can think of a few examples within Bristol.
>
> I can also think of examples of LCNs (the River Avon Path at Conham)
> that are all but impassable on anything less than a mountain bike after
> prolonged rain so even those can't really be trusted.
>
> It's a bit of a minefield even when the tags are correct.
>
>
> All the best
>
> Chris
>
> On 09/11/2021 17:46, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> > On 09/11/2021 15:27, Harvey Blundell wrote:
> >> Hello there,
> >>
> >> I'm new to the community, but happy to meet you all and be involved in
> >> the project.
> >>
> >> I am a Transport Development Officer for Leicester City Council and we
> >> are working with an external provider to create a route planner for
> >> Leicester, highlighting safe cycleways and walking routes in the city.
> >>
> >> We are trying to work out a sustainable ruleset for their journey
> >> planner technology and though it best to consult with the community to
> >> see what you think before making changes to the map in the area.
> >>
> >> They are an international contractor but I want their ruleset to be
> >> correct for the UK so we can make and manage changes to the OSM map
> >> correctly.
> >>
> >> They have shared with me their route planning criteria:
> >>
> >>   1.
> >>
> >>      Default cycle-frienliness based on the highway type
> >>      <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
> > (highway=* tag). Friendly values
> >>      are:
> >>
> >>        *
> >>
> >>          highway=living_street and highway=rest_area
> >>
> >>        *
> >>
> >>          highway types that allow cycling (and possibly walking) but not
> >>          motor-vehicles. Default values
> >>          are highway=path and highway=cycleway, although this actually
> >>          depends on the region and country since access restrictions may
> >>          differ among them.
> > I wouldn't trust highway=path unless it's explicitly tagged with
> > bicycle=* to allow cycling and isn't also tagged with informal=yes. The
> > value of surface=* may also need to be considered.
> >
> >>   2.
> >>
> >>      Sidewalks
> >>      <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
> > (footway=sidewalk)
> >>      are not friendly.
> > Not always, some have good quality segregated cycle paths (bicycle=yes +
> > segregated=yes).
> >
> >>   3.
> >>
> >>      Roads with cycle-lanes
> >>      <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
> > (cycleway=* tag)
> >>      are friendly.
> >>
> >>   4.
> >>
> >>      Roads forming official cycling networks
> >>      are friendly (icn/ncn/rcn/lcn=* tags and also official cycling
> >>      networks mapped as OSM relations).
> >>
> >>   5.
> >>
> >>      Sections marked with bicycle=designated are friendly (even if it
> is,
> >>      for instance, a road without lanes).
> > Not necessarily. PRoWs which are bridleways/restricted byways/BOATs may
> > be tagged with bicycle=designated, but may not be surfaced or suitable
> > for all types of bicycle (or anything other than a mountain bike). The
> > value of surface=* may also need to be considered.
> >
> >>   6.
> >>
> >>      Bicycle roads
> >>      <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_road
> > (bicycle_road=yes)
> >>      and cycle streets
> >>      <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cyclestreet
> > (cyclestreet=yes)
> >>      are friendly.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure this is consistent with UK labelling conventions and we
> >> have run into problems as a result. If anyone has any recommended
> >> changes to this, I would be happy to hear your suggestions.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Harvey Blundell
> >>
> >> Transport Development Officer
> >>
> >> Active Travel Team - Neighbourhoods
> >>
> >> Transport Strategy
> >>
> >> Planning, Development and Transportation
> >>
> >> Leicester City Council
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20211109/0bb91414/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list