Marko Mäkelä wrote: > To make turn directions easier to read, I begun adding name, name:fi, > name:sv to cycleways that are running adjacent to ways for motor vehicles. > In this way, I will see the road names instead of "Track". > > Today I got some objection for that and a suggestion to introduce a > tag for the "fake" cycleway names. I have to agree with the objection. > Some cycleways do carry genuine names, and with my constructive tagging, > it will be harder to distinguish genuinely named cycleways from ones that > merely run along a way. Furthermore, some cycleway=track that are > adjacent to a major road can be separated by tens of meters of natural=wood > near multi-layer junctions. It would feel wrong to see these cycleways > tagged with the ref or name of adjacent way (say, E75 or M1 or A1) in the > SlippyMap view. > > Is there any "standard" tag for such "fake" cycleway names? Theoretically, > the most appealing approach would be to group all OSM ways (lanes) that > belong to a physical highway in a relation. Alas, based on what I have seen > when fixing roundabouts, relations tend to get broken over time. Could > we invent a new name tag for this? User alv proposed name:isnextto, but > I find that it could be confused with a language code such as name:en. > Perhaps way_name and way_ref? Any ideas? > > Best regards, > > Marko > I wouldn't even use routable cycleway=*;
But in my opinion a map shared for car/cycle use anyhow will not work out. Better add visual cycleways beside the road to distinguish them. > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
