[OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced

[Lester Caine]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Claus Hindsgaul 
> <claus.hindsgaul at gmail.com <mailto:claus.hindsgaul at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     The outcome of the discussion was by default to represent bicycle
>     tracks/lanes with "cycleway=track/lane" tags in the accompanying
>     road instead of separate "cycleway=highway". The following expressed
>     exceptions were agreed upon and is now pinned out in the Danish
>     guideline (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Cykelstivejledning):
> 
>         * distances where the path/contour of the bicycle track differs
>           significantly from that of the road
>         * distances where the bicycle track is separated from the road
>           by a barrier not easily nor legally passed by a bicycle (a
>           curb is regarded as easily passed).
>         * distances where the bicycle track has a significant distance
>           to the road side (~ >5 meter)
> 
> 
> Excellent, agree completely with these.
> 
>         * distances where permitted traffic directions of different
>           vehicles can not otherwise be correctly described (this bullet
>           could well be elliminated by the present discussion)
>         * distances where car road and bicycle track properties differs
>           significantly (e.g. paved road and dirt bicycle track)
> 
> Not sure about this one. Seems like "surface:cycleway=dirt" would be 
> perfectly reasonable. I can't think of any examples, but since cycleways 
> and roads tend to be maintained separately, it would seem possible for 
> one surface to degrade to the point where you'd want to mark it as 
> different from the other. At that point, I don't see that it has 
> suddenly changed in status in any major way.
> 
> But that's a minor quibble. I really like the major cases, and think we 
> should document them in the english wiki.

Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are mapped - or prevent 
adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually physically form part of 
the 'accompanying' road. This sort of 'shorthand' should not replace mapping the 
real situation on the ground ESPECIALLY where the cycleway ( or 
sidewalk/footpath ) is not physically part of the 'accompanying' road.

NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the 'correct' way of mapping!

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php