[OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new highway tagging scheme - thinking about)
mark.666 at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Aug 29 00:04:57 BST 2007
> I guess you probably meant to send this to the list?
Yeah - Did send it again for that, having missed 1st go!
> 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
> > bicycle=yes, foot=yes which is brown.
> So you use cycleway= for the long distance ones, highway=cycleway for
> the local ones?
No, but I would if we had any. All very bitsy round here & nothing
dedicated. I would put both on for a decent one, not leave it without a
>> 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)
Well I thought so, but looking at other posts, apparently not. I wasn't
sufficiently impressed by the one I gave earlier to do it, but have on
other sections of the same road.
is on the same road, A1306, but I like the suggestion made earlier about
getting the renderer to colour the road border for lanes better.
More information about the talk