[OSM-talk] Cycle mapping
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sun Jul 29 13:44:20 BST 2007
Comments in line
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravitystorm at gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 July 2007 11:32
> To: Peter Miller
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle mapping
> 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
> > in a box, similar in design and colour to the 'P' in a box for car
> > (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
I am using the regulation 'bicycle_parking' tag for now. I will add the
number of places to them using a suitable tag. Is there one that is used for
car parking I wonder? Any suggestions from anyone? or I will use the tag
'capacity' which is pretty general and could be applied to parking, a
theatre, stadium etc etc.
> > Can we remove information about car parking from the rendering? I feel
> > 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)
> 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
> > described the Ipswich hospital in east Ipswich that way if you want to
> > the rendering).
> > Can we have toilets marked on the close up mapping? (I have a few in
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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'
> > 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.
Makes sense. The technique of using the casing to indicate a contra_flow
could be useful in that case. The casing may need to be different on each
side of the road, but the arrow in the road would then continue to represent
car directions. In London a light blue casing on the left hand side of the
road means there are facilities for cycling on that side of the road which
would override the one-way arrow.
> I've added all this to the todo list
More information about the talk