[OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new highway tagging scheme - thinking about)

[graham]

I guess you probably meant to send this to the list?

Mark Williams wrote:

> 
> We have a local area (Chafford Hundred)where these signs are common - 
> this is in fact a 2-level way with a distinct step/kerb to segregate 
> foot/cycle lanes,

I wouldn't have any issues with that. It's sticking the signs on 
unchanged, narrow, and often used pavements at the side of main roads I 
object to.

 >This is however a net of cycleways in a residential area, not 
 >through-ways for serious long-distance travel. I wouldn't go fast here 
 >as it crosses roads frequently, and toddlers don't read the signs. I
 > have them in the maps as highway=cycleway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes 
which > brings them up green in Osmarender, as opposed to highway=footway,
 > bicycle=yes, foot=yes which is brown.

So you use cycleway= for the long distance ones, highway=cycleway for 
the local ones?

> Perhaps the route itself speaks volumes on the speed of these paths? The 
> main cycle route is a separate lane alongside the old A13 (now A1306), 
> which is clearly straight past the area but short of adding a separate 
> way, doesn't show on a map.

I started adding these as ways. Is that not a common convention? Eg.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.48409684650149&lon=-0.3192976639136069&zoom=16

(renders in osmarender, not mapnik)


  Or perhaps a better method would be
> maxspeed=10, which on a no-car route tells you it's a bit slow... When 
> TomTom for pushbikes comes out, it would tend to avoid these!

:-)

Graham

> 
> Mark
>