[OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu Apr 30 22:48:04 BST 2009


Richard Mann wrote:
> It comes down to what you think is meant by "highway=cycleway". If you
> think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want
> to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route.

Depends on jurisdiction, of course.  One problem OSM has with handling
Oregon and Washington State properly is people are bad about tagging
foot=yes and bicycle=yes to highway types that default to no for those
vehicle classes (since /all/ ways, including motorways, are open to
bicycles and pedestrians unless otherwise posted, in Oregon and
Washington State, and the only ways that commonly disallow pedestrians
and bicycles are narrow tunnels with an alternate route, and ways with
no amenities traversing the desert outback (why would you bike or hike
that anyway?)).

Though this particular access restriction peculiarity makes me wonder if
there's hitchhiking= access tags in common use yet, since Washington
prohibits the practice on motorways, but Oregon lets you hitchhike and
stop for hitchhikers anywhere except within about 2km of a prison.

> But cycle superhighways are pretty rare, and "highway=cycleway" is used much more
> widely than that. I've come to the view that "cycleway" should be used
> if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and
> nobody's obviously objecting.

I'll grant that... and highway=cycleway, pedestrian=no is an oddball
enough combination that even where it /is/ a common situation
(Interstate NCNs around Portland), there's still a good chance for
bicycle/pedestrian traffic conflicts because some dork decided a
pedestrians-prohibited 14-foot-wide cycleway hemmed in by two
10-foot-high fences next to a freeway is a nice, pleasant place to go
dogging with a 20-foot-long leash (when it's obviously a commuter
corridor where pedestrians present a real safety hazard to themselves
and others).

> There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow
> anti-pedestrian. I would certainly suggest to renderers that "cycleway"
> may not be the best description - "foot/cycleway" might be better. Do we
> need to change the word we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad
> idea, but maybe not a priority.

I'm not sure that's quite the best description, because the designations
aren't interchangeable (some cycleways prohibit pedestrians, most
footways don't allow bicycles).

> Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe.
> Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks
> (lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes,
> and avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also
> helpful to tag cycle barriers ("barrier=cycle_barrier"), which are
> widely used to discourage the use of less-suitable (but still
> accessible) routes.

Indeed.  Maximum widths and lengths would be extremely useful at these
barriers as well, in any location where the cycle lane is narrower than
the legally prescribed minimum cycle lane width, or where particularly
long human-powered vehicle combinations (tandem, bike towing trailer,
third wheel "pusher" kid seats, surreys) would have difficulty
negotiating the obstacle.

I can think of a number of spots on cycleways in Beaverton that prohibit
pedestrians, but have overzealous anti-motorist measures, the most
common of which being gaps in fences at school boundaries intended to
get cyclists down to walking speed (as the gap is barely wider than
handlebars) but do a better job at hamstringing inexperienced riders,
surreys and bicycle trailers.  The most extreme of which appear at some
intersections built in the late 1960s, which feature an offset gap
around shin high with entry and exit turns that are frequently too sharp
for an unencumbered bicycle longer than 4 feet to make the turns without
having to get up and just carry it over the barrier (equal call in that
area whether it was NIMBYs annoyed about the prospect of having bicycle
traffic on their back fencelines, or simply the work of a civil engineer
who hasn't seen a bicycle since grade school at play here).  At least in
Beaverton, unless you plan your trip well and you know the obstacles
really well, these barriers can make pulling a bike trailer or driving a
surrey impossible, and getting around on a bicycle larger than you would
expect a pre-teen to ride difficult.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090430/960a4503/attachment.pgp>


More information about the talk mailing list