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

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Wed Aug 29 12:59:57 BST 2007


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravitystorm at gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 August 2007 12:30
> To: Peter Miller
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new
> highwaytagging scheme - thinking about)
> 
> On 8/29/07, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
> > > Message: 4
> > > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:29:24 +0100
> > > From: Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new
> > >       highwaytagging scheme - thinking about)
> > > To: Cameron Patrick <cameron at patrick.wattle.id.au>
> > > Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> > > Message-ID: <8cb4814066f762c81bc18d9b2bfe246b at acrewoods.net>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:07:12 +0800, Cameron Patrick
> > > <cameron at patrick.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > > > I got the impression that "lcn" was reserved for more formal cycle
> > > > networks?  I'd go for "cycling=poor|medium|good" (note that this is
> a
> > > > new tag, as distinct from the bike=yes or whatever the current one
> is
> > > > called).
> >

I agree, also I understand that the bicycle=yes/no' tag is about the
legality of cycling so where we are talking about the quality of the link we
need a different tag.

> > TO be clear, lcn_ref is used to identify a signed route (which may or
> may
> > not be good to cycle on) and lcn=yes is used to show other useful local
> > cycle route and is open to ideas on how to extend its use.
> 
> That's not quite how I've been intending - there's lots of signed
> London Cycle Network routes that don't have reference numbers, so
> lcn=yes* is used for that. For instance, the route along Smuggler's
> way at http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/?lat=6702893.62902&lon=-
> 21321.78807&zoom=15&layers=B00
> has cycle network signage (blue signs, destinations), but no route
> reference number.
>

Thanks for the clarification; I will sort my tagging out over the net week
or so.

> I haven't tackled the concept of not-signed-but-nice-anyway routes -
> so far I've been concentrating on routes signed by external agencies,
> and using the troika of ncn, rcn and lcn for different agencies at
> different levels.
> 

If we do use the good/adequate/poor tagging for not-signed-but-nice-anyway
or signed-but-not-nice Ways, then I think it would be good for it to allow
for many different sorts of user (novice cyclists, maniac cyclists, buggies,
wheelchairs etc) and the tagging should allow for a structure in the tag
name and should be extensible to new user groups. How about this sort of
thing?

Qual_cycle=good/usable/poor
Qual_walk=good/usable/poor
Qual_buggy=good/usable/poor


> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> * actually route=lcn up until now, but I'll retag stuff shortly.





More information about the talk mailing list