[OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com
Thu Jun 11 10:41:27 BST 2009


If the Dutch have a specific "cyclestreet" sign which is widely understood
to mean something to road users, then I'd have said that's good enough to
warrant a cycleway=cyclestreet, even if the sign doesn't generate any
special traffic rules, just an expectation of priority/courtesy. But it
wouldn't be sensible to use it for any old street with cycle route or
destination signs.

I think the typical layout for a cyclestreet is for any parking to be in
bays (ie with buildouts at junctions), resulting in a narrow carriageway,
usually with a fairly constant width. This layout is sometimes done just for
traffic calming anyway. It becomes a cyclestreet when you add a recognised
sign.

If you've got something a little more wholesale in America/Canada, then
great. But the general principle is the same - you've signed it to create an
expectation of priority for through cycle movements.
Richard
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> Cartinus wrote:
>
> > But all other cyclestreets I know of in the Netherlands are signposted
> with
> > signs that have no legal status at all. Using designation=cyclestreet
> there
> > would not be appropriate. Using highway=residential or unclassified plus
> > cycleway=cyclestreet sounds like a very good idea for them.
>
> If it's merely posted as a bicycle route but it's not a cyclestreet,
> that would just be whatever highway= plus bicycle=designated.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090611/0574b177/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list