[OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Ed Loach wrote:
>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with
>> highway=cycleway.
> 
> As per the discussion on the talk page of the proposal.
> Alternatively highway=(road type), access=no, bicycle=yes. There are
> arguments I believe that in exceptions where cars are also allowed,
> having a different highway type would make clear that bicycles have
> right of way over cars (if I read the discussion correctly). Even
> then, highway=cycleway, width=whatever, motorcar=permissive (or
> whatever the tags are) should suffice. Or is this about how it
> renders?

This is about how it renders /and/ access.  Bicycle boulevards imply
that it's perfectly legal to drive a motorcar on it, but doing so is
generally a bad idea because you're going to be forced to turn, get
caught in a velojam (traffic jam consisting primarily of bicycles), or
both.  The restrictions and intersection devices simply favor the
bicycle boulevard.  Cyclemaps should render this on par to a tertiary or
better that identifies it as such, maps geared towards motorists would
show it as a minor access like an alley (since cyclists would consider a
bicycle boulevard to be a more major route than an adjacent seven-lane
boulevard lacking bicycle facilities, and a motorist would likely prefer
the boulevard to a street where cars are forced off the way by
only_right_turn every few blocks (motorists usually only being granted
the rightmost lane on bicycle boulevards at intersections).  In reality,
it's more major than a residential, but not as major as a tertiary, in
terms of who gets right of way at intersections.

-------------- 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/20090610/0d891e9f/attachment.pgp>