[Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways

Scott Atwood scott.roy.atwood at gmail.com
Wed Nov 26 04:27:48 GMT 2008


A route of network type unlcn sounds like it would be a pretty good fit for
the use cases of Class III bike routes, and perhaps also MUPs and their
on-street detours.
I'm not quite sure what to do about Bicycle Boulevards.  To me, it feels
like they merit a unique attribution of some type.  Has anyone from
Portland, OR begun tagging the Bicycle Boulevards up there?  If so, do you
have any suggestions?

As for the Santa Clara County expressways, they are a bit of a mixed bag.
 Some, like Foothill Expressway, have very wide shoulders and are some of
the most pleasant on-street cycling routes in the area.  Foothill is almost
always swarming with cyclists.  Others, like parts of Lawrence Expressway,
have very little shoulder and can be quite a harrowing cycling experience.
 Perhaps Jessica's suggestion to somehow tag the expressways to indicate the
presence or absence of a wide shoulder is the best we can do.  Whether or
not riding on the expressways is a pleasant cycling experience is a very
subjective determination, so perhaps the best we can do is tag them
appropriately so cyclists can make an appropriate informed decision.

-Scott

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Alan Brown <adbrown1967 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> My inclination would be to want an extra class of routes or two supported
> with different network type (perhaps "unlcn" for "unnumbered local
> network"?) for the lowliest of bike routes.   I'm not what I'd want done for
> expressways.  Perhaps there could be a way to tag a road as treacherous for
> bicyclists, that's still legal to ride on  - or add a warning POI.  I'm not
> sure if that sort of information belongs in OSM, as it's subjective, but it
> would be helpful.
>
> -Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Scott Atwood <scott.roy.atwood at gmail.com>
> *To:* talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:21:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
>
> One other thing I'd like to add:
> Expressways.  Here in Santa Clara County, we have a quirky system of roads
> called "Expressways", which lie somewhere between normal arterials and
> freeways.  They tend to have few or no frontage driveways and a limited
>  intersections.  There are some freeway style interchanges.  Pedestrians are
> prohibited for the most part, but bicycles are permitted on all of them.
>  Most of them have wide shoulders, and a few even have bike lanes on the
> shoulders.  Some of these expressways are excellent routes for moderately
> confident cyclists.  I have no idea how these expressways should be tagged
> for cyclists, and any suggestions are welcome.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Scott Atwood <scott.roy.atwood at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I am an avid cyclist in the San Francisco Bay Area and I have recently
>> started editing my local area in OSM.  I would like to map all the local
>> bike routes and facilities, but I'm not sure of the best way to tag them in
>> OSM.  Here are the different kinds of facilities I have encountered, and my
>> best guess at how to tag them.
>>
>> Bike Lanes (a.k.a. Class II).   This one is pretty easy.  I just tag these
>> as {cycleway=lane}, and they render quite nicely in the Cycle Map layer.
>>  The one problem I've encountered so far is that the existing tagging scheme
>> doesn't seem to handle bike lanes that are only one side of a two-way
>> street.  This is not a common situation, but it does happen.  A similar
>> problem would apply to sidewalks and on-street parking that are only on wide
>> side of the street.  Has anyone proposed a solution to this class of
>> problem?
>>
>> Multi-Use Paths (a.k.a. Class I).  This one is also pretty easy.  I tag
>> these as {highway=cycleway, cycleway=track, foot=yes}.  However, one wrinkle
>> is that these MUPs sometimes have have sections with an on-street alignment.
>>  In that case, I added a relation to the entire MUP, both the off-street
>> trail portions, and the on-street alignments, that was tagged like
>> {route=bicycle, type=route, name=_name_of_the_MUP_}.  I intentionally left
>> off the network tag from the relation, since this isn't part of a formal
>> route network per se, but if anything, it would be {network=lcn}
>>
>> Bike Routes (a.k.a. Class III).  This one, I'm a little bit more confused
>> about.  These are just streets that have "Bicycle Route" signs on them, and
>> nothing more.  Often, they overlap with Bike Lanes.  They have no names or
>> numbers associated with them.  I've never seen any formal map that shows
>> bike lanes.  I've only ever stumbled across them while out on rides.  They
>> tend to have approximately the quality of cycling conditions as Bike Lanes,
>> without the stripe, of course.  But they are distinctly at the lowest tier
>> of cycle facility.  I have typically been tagging these as
>> {bicycle=designated}.  One of the other local cycle mappers has been tagging
>> them with a relation like {route=bicycle, type=route, network=lcn}.   I'm
>> not sure which is a better approach.  My tagging scheme feels more in line
>> with the spirit of this type of facility, but I suspect that to date no one
>> is giving this a distinct rendering. The latter scheme seems OK too, but
>> perhaps implies a bit more status to these routes that feels appropriate.
>>  Also, I suspect they may render even more prominently than Bike Lanes,
>> which doesn't seem quite right.
>>
>> Local Numbered Cycle Routes.   In my local area, there is only a single
>> numbered local bike route, San Jose Crosstown Bike Route 11, which I
>> implemented as a relation like {network=lcn, ref=11, route=bicycle,
>> type=route}.  This tagging feels about right, and renders the way I'd expect
>> in the Cycle Map.
>>
>> Bicycle Boulevards.  To the best of my knowledge, there is only one
>> Bicycle Boulevard in the local area, the Ellen Fletcher Bicycle Boulevard,
>> on Bryant St. in Palo Alto.  As far as I know, no one has added the Bicycle
>> Boulevard to OSM yet, and I'm not sure what the best way is.  Probably a
>> relation is the best tool to use, but I feel like a Bicycle Boulevard ought
>> to have a distinct rendering, since it is distinguished by lots of cyclist
>> friendly features like diverters for motorists, traffic calming measures,
>> and cyclist signal priority.
>>
>> I guess what I would really like is a richer set options to use tagging
>> and rendering bike routes, besides just lcn/rcn/ncn.  To some extent, Class
>> III Bike Routes, bicycle boulevards, and the on-street alignments of MUPs
>> are all appropriate use cases for bicycle route relations, but to me at
>> least, feel like they should be tagged and rendered distinctly from routes
>> that are part of an official local cycling network.
>>
>> Thoughts?  Opinions?
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> --
>> Scott Atwood
>>
>> Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia.  ~H.G. Wells
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Scott Atwood
>
> Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia.  ~H.G. Wells
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Scott Atwood

Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia.  ~H.G. Wells
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20081125/03cf49c0/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list