[OSM-talk] Cycle mapping

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Sun Jul 29 11:31:48 BST 2007

On 7/29/07, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:

> The cycle mapping a great, but here is a few more requests!

Excellent, this is why I ask for feedback!

> Can we have cycle parking marked on the closer zoom levels, possibly a 'C'
> in a box, similar in design and colour to the 'P' in a box for car parking?
> (there is lots of cycle parking marked in the middle of Ipswich).

Absolutely - it's already on the todo list ("Bike parking for Peter
Miller", no less!). What tags are you using? I'll render them in the
next pass for you. I'd like the tags to represent how many bikes can
be parked at a given location, but I'll see how you're doing things

> Can we remove information about car parking from the rendering? I feel it
> will clutter and confuse the map.

Seems reasonable - the cycle layer is based on the standard mapnik
rendering, so I've only taking things out when I've thought about
doing so. On second thoughts, maybe people will want it for rural
areas when taking bikes out for a ride in a forest somewhere? Maybe
grey them out instead? What do you think?

> Can you render 'highway=track' as suitable for cycling unless otherwise
> stated (there is a missing track east to west in this view)
> http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/?lat=6818862.90774&lon=159274.98405&zoom=13&layers=B00

Yeah, I need to look at "gappy" sections. This is what comes of
someone asking last week for all cycleways to be emphasised! By
"suitable for cycling" do you mean yellow highlighting?

> Can we have buildings (area features) marked on the close up scales? (I have
> described the Ipswich hospital in east Ipswich that way if you want to check
> the rendering).


> Can we have toilets marked on the close up mapping? (I have a few in central
> Ipswich and in the main park if you want to check the rendering)

Absolutely, that's a major peeve of mine about all other maps. Tags?

> Finally, one for the longer term to-do list possibly… roads are still marked
> as 'one way' on the cycle mapping even if they have a cycle contra-flow.
> Well … on a cycle map I am really not that interested about information
> about restrictions for cars, so can one-way arrows only displayed if there
> is not a cycle contra-flow?  Museum Street in the middle of Ipswich is a
> case in point. It is coded as 'one-way' with a 'cycleway=opposite_lane' but
> is rendered as one-way on the new cycle mapping

I'd like to go one better, and find a way of rendering that it's both.
For example, I cycled north up Battersea Bridge road and missed a
cycleway=opposite_lane along Petworth Street - since there were big
no-entry signs.


I'd like to render it so that if it's a contraflow cycle lane you're
expecting it, rather than expecting a two-way road.

I've added all this to the todo list


More information about the talk mailing list