Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Cheers for clarifying the 'segregated' issue. I hadn't considered the
benefit of having a positive surface tag even where it matches the default,
so I'll start doing that when I map.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 15:20 Martin - CycleStreets, <
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> > I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does
> > seem garbled at points
>
> Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly
> intended
> as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata
> tags present, but things like surface should have been better written.
>
> I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope
> others
> can enhance the section too.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing
>
>
> > Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
> > physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather
> than
> > the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?
>
> Sorry, yes, fixed.
>
>
> > Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
> > marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
>
> Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is
> considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some
> places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases
> where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of
> muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once
> the value is known.
>
> My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed
> by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that
> isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This
> demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather
> than assumed/unknown/ambiguous).
>
>
> Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
> Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Martin - CycleStreets]

Mike Baggaley wrote:

There should be no need for a tag to indicate whether a cycleway is 
separated from the road, as if the cycleway is part of the road it should 
not be tagged as highway=cycleway at all - it should be tagged as 
highway=(something else) + cycleway=*.  The 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle page in the wiki is quite 
clear that there is only one way to map cycle lanes (i.e. not separated 
from road) whereas there are two ways to map cycle tracks (separated from 
a road).


Agreed; a painted lane on the road should always be an attribute of the 
road. It's a lane by definition.


The problem arises with 'hybrid' cycle lane/track stuff, for which a 
discussion was started at:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-June/024612.html

Are these lanes or tracks? :

https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/108979/
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143810/
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143794/

My general view is that where there is such partial physical segregation, 
but it is part of the road, it is probably best to use cycleway=track, 
oneway=yes as attributes on the main highway, but the stronger the 
segregation, the more I would lean to using a separate highway=cycleway, 
not least because it's easier then to put proper metadata on it.



Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Martin - CycleStreets]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote:

I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does 
seem garbled at points 


Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly intended 
as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata 
tags present, but things like surface should have been better written.


I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope others 
can enhance the section too.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing


Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the 
physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than 
the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?


Sorry, yes, fixed.


Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does 
marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...


Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is 
considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some 
places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases 
where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of 
muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once 
the value is known.


My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed 
by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that 
isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This 
demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather 
than assumed/unknown/ambiguous).



Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Mike Baggaley]

>> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
>> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
>> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
>> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
>> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

>+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)
>+1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes 
>in a shared cycleway

There should be no need for a tag to indicate whether a cycleway is separated 
from the road, as if the cycleway is part of the road it should not be tagged 
as highway=cycleway at all - it should be tagged as highway=(something else) + 
cycleway=*.  The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle  page in the wiki 
is quite clear that there is only one way to map cycle lanes (i.e. not 
separated from road) whereas there are two ways to map cycle tracks (separated 
from a road). 

Regards,
Mike



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

>On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 22:07, ael

> wrote:  >On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM >+0100, 
>Adam Snape wrote:
>> 
>> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
>> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
>> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
>> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
>> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

>+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)
+1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes 
in a shared cycleway

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> 
> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[ael]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> 
> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

I'm not saying it's terrible but as you note it's not exactly an optimum
example of good mapping.

Just as with roads, I tend to view cycleway surface tags as distinctly
optional/low priority where they confirm to the default of being asphalt
and of great importance where they deviate from that default.

The above are just personal niggles, but we really do need to beclear at
this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 20:14 Gareth L,  wrote:

> I do have to say that surface info is very useful. A lot of cycleways have
> gravel sections and that can be no fun on, say, a Brompton bike with 16”
> wheels.
>
> Much like pavements, I’d start my focus on the details which are not what
> you might expect, like where a road doesn’t have a pedestrian walkway at
> all, or only on one side. Ultimately, it’s all useful data.
>
> The embankment example makes some sense to me, although that level of
> Cycle infrastructure (cycle superhighways) is seldom seen outside of the
> capital. Segregated and sidewalk tag seems redundant as the footpath is
> mapped as a separate way, but they were added at version 1 when the other
> data may not have been there?
>
> Gareth
>
> On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:49, Adam Snape  wrote:
>
> 
> Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
> marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
>
> I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem
> garbled at points
>
> Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
> physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than
> the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?
>
> The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a
> separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no,
> segregated=yes, sidewalk=right.
>
> Kind regards,,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> "Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no"
>> is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
>> I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
>> oneway tag to be always present
>>
>> I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
>> (I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
>> as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
>> Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.
>>
>>
>> Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle
>> infrastructure.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure
>>
>>
>>
>> Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have
>> avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter
>> roads.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Gareth
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Gareth L]

I do have to say that surface info is very useful. A lot of cycleways have 
gravel sections and that can be no fun on, say, a Brompton bike with 16” wheels.

Much like pavements, I’d start my focus on the details which are not what you 
might expect, like where a road doesn’t have a pedestrian walkway at all, or 
only on one side. Ultimately, it’s all useful data.

The embankment example makes some sense to me, although that level of Cycle 
infrastructure (cycle superhighways) is seldom seen outside of the capital. 
Segregated and sidewalk tag seems redundant as the footpath is mapped as a 
separate way, but they were added at version 1 when the other data may not have 
been there?

Gareth

On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:49, Adam Snape  wrote:


Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking the 
surface on every single asphalt cycleway...

I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem 
garbled at points

Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the physical 
separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than the separation 
of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?

The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a 
separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no, 
segregated=yes, sidewalk=right.

Kind regards,,

Adam







On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
"Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no"
is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
oneway tag to be always present

I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
(I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.


Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:

Hello,



The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle infrastructure. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure



Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have 
avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter roads.



Best regards

Gareth

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking
the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...

I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem
garbled at points

Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than
the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?

The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a
separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no,
segregated=yes, sidewalk=right.

Kind regards,,

Adam







On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> "Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no"
> is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
> I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
> oneway tag to be always present
>
> I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
> (I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
> as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
> Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.
>
>
> Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle
> infrastructure.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure
>
>
>
> Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have
> avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter
> roads.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Gareth
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

"Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no" 
is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
oneway tag to be always present

I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
(I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.


Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:

>
> Hello,
>
>
>  
>
>
> The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle 
> infrastructure. >  
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure
>
>
>  
>
>
> Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have 
> avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter roads.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Gareth
>
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Gareth L]

Hello,

The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle infrastructure. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure

Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have 
avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter roads.

Best regards
Gareth
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb