[OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
Steve Bennett
stevagewp at gmail.com
Tue Dec 29 12:48:03 GMT 2009
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> But it is documented in
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway since a while and is
> about 100 times in osmdoc. The problem with cycleway=lane is that the
> wiki never says clearly if it is for both sides and both directions or
> if it can apply for one side only.
>
I think cycleway=lane clearly implies that there are lanes on both sides,
hence why replacing that with cycleway:left= is bad. If there is only one
lane, then fair enough to not use cycleway=lane.
>
> > 6) You could also add "cycleway=no" where appropriate.
> where ?
>
In the examples with a way that has no cycleway, like M5.
>
> > 7) You don't make allowance for segregated cycleways
> > ("tracks"/copenhagen-style lanes) that aren't represented as distinct
> ways.
> > Is "highway=residential, cycleway=track" not possible?
>
> You mean for T1 and T2 but with only one way in OSM, right (the track
> is not traced separately) ? I didn't know it was called the
> "copenhagen-style". I will add it but not as a recommended solution.
>
The term "copenhagen style bike lane" is widely used in Australia, seems to
be used in New York, and maybe some other places - it's hard to tell.
I am indeed talking about examples like T1 and T2. I don't see why it should
be necessary to separately trace the bike path if it exactly follows the
contour of the road. Just like we don't map pavements and lanes and stuff
like that.
Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091229/ee1a626a/attachment.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list