[OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new highway tagging scheme - thinking about)
graham at theseamans.net
Tue Aug 28 23:48:48 BST 2007
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
>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.
(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!
More information about the talk