Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> Never mind simply tagging it loses spatial detail in the process, and >> complicates routing engines (since turns are often restricted or >> prohibited from the cycle track across the adjacent road and vice >> versa). >> >> > I would love to hear more from programmers of routing engines. My intuition > says that this level of "complication" is very low, but I could be wrong. > > I'm also not sure that turns *are* "ofter restricted or prohibited". You're > saying that in a left-drive country, cyclists in a cycling lane/track can't > turn right in situations where motorists can? What do they have to do, > continue to the next intersection, then double back? I find this implausible > - why invest the money in a cycling track, then hobble cyclists like that? In many places, it's illegal to turn across a restricted lane, be it bike or otherwise. In these cases, if you want to turn across the lane, you go around the block in the opposite direction similar to a cloverleaf. From cycletracks where there's a median between it and the adjacent road, the cycletrack either has it's own exits controlled by traffic signal across the adjacent road or expects you to go around the block, depending on whether or not there is space to provide exit/enterance ramps. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Never mind simply tagging it loses spatial detail in the process, and > complicates routing engines (since turns are often restricted or > prohibited from the cycle track across the adjacent road and vice > versa). > > I would love to hear more from programmers of routing engines. My intuition says that this level of "complication" is very low, but I could be wrong. I'm also not sure that turns *are* "ofter restricted or prohibited". You're saying that in a left-drive country, cyclists in a cycling lane/track can't turn right in situations where motorists can? What do they have to do, continue to the next intersection, then double back? I find this implausible - why invest the money in a cycling track, then hobble cyclists like that? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >cycleway=curb_delimited >> >> I'm against this. If it's seperated by a curb, that counts as a median, >> and should be treated as a seperate way. >> >> > IMHO, options are good. If it's separated by a median, that means you're > justified in mapping it as a whole separate way. But a simple tag to > indicate that – without all the effort – is a good thing. Never mind simply tagging it loses spatial detail in the process, and complicates routing engines (since turns are often restricted or prohibited from the cycle track across the adjacent road and vice versa). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >cycleway=curb_delimited > > I'm against this. If it's seperated by a curb, that counts as a median, > and should be treated as a seperate way. > > IMHO, options are good. If it's separated by a median, that means you're justified in mapping it as a whole separate way. But a simple tag to indicate that – without all the effort – is a good thing. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > We considered proposing: > >cycleway=curb > > which is short, but as someone pointed out, you don't actually ride > the bike on the curb like you do the track or the lane. Alternatively > we could use: > >cycleway=curb_delimited I'm against this. If it's seperated by a curb, that counts as a median, and should be treated as a seperate way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
2009/12/6 Steve Bennett > > cycleway=barrier > cycleway=separated_lane > cycleway=kerb_separated > you might also want to have a look at this draft: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > [0] http://osm.org/go/0H9xGkqbE-?layers=0B00FTF > > > That renders nicely, but the oneway tags seem redundant. I guess that's the downside of mapping a oneway bike lane distinctly from the road. You need the oneway=yes for routing, but you don't need it for rendering. This sort of convinces me that more cycleway=* options *are* needed, to allow bike lanes to share a way with the road, but without losing their current flexibility. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On 08/12/2009, at 21.44, Richard Mann wrote: > Could you point us to an example, please? I assume you mean an example of how OSMArender renders cycleway=track? I found an example [0] where you can see a cycleway=track in the north part of the tile; the road turns in the SW direction, and for some reason the cycleway has been mapped as "highway=cycleway" on that part (I go there often and there is no fundemental physical difference of the bikepath.) The highway=cycleway way wonders back & forth like a DUI driver, but it is indeed at a constant distance from the center of the main road :-) Cheers, Morten [0] http://osm.org/go/0H9xGkqbE-?layers=0B00FTF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
tight/spacious/critical are terms from the Dutch guidance on assessing/adapting roads for cycling, and endorsed by UK guidance (Type "LTN208" into your favourite search engine if interested) Richard On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann < > richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> While we're about it, there's a few other potential values for cycleway >> (for interest mainly): >> >> cycleway=buslane (shared with buses) >> > > Has potential. > > >> cycleway=filterlane (explicitly shared with nearside-turning traffic) >> > > Has potential. > > >> cycleway=tight (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is <3.1m wide >> > > Two descriptive. Sounds awfully much like "cycleway=no" to me. > > >> cycleway=spacious (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is >3.7m wide, >> more if typical traffic speed is faster than 40kph) >> > > There's something here. If you look at: > > http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.859974,145.16891&z=21&t=k > > This is Springvale Rd, in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. I'm told that that > left lane (on the northbound side) is deliberately wider to cater for > cyclists. It's not really a bike lane, but there is some benefit for > cyclists there. > > > >> cycleway=critical (nearside lane is shared with traffic and between tight >> and spacious) >> > > Nah. > > Steve > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > While we're about it, there's a few other potential values for cycleway > (for interest mainly): > > cycleway=buslane (shared with buses) > Has potential. > cycleway=filterlane (explicitly shared with nearside-turning traffic) > Has potential. > cycleway=tight (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is <3.1m wide > Two descriptive. Sounds awfully much like "cycleway=no" to me. > cycleway=spacious (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is >3.7m wide, > more if typical traffic speed is faster than 40kph) > There's something here. If you look at: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.859974,145.16891&z=21&t=k This is Springvale Rd, in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. I'm told that that left lane (on the northbound side) is deliberately wider to cater for cyclists. It's not really a bike lane, but there is some benefit for cyclists there. > cycleway=critical (nearside lane is shared with traffic and between tight > and spacious) > Nah. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. > > If "copenhagen-style" refers to the danish capital, this is something > of a misnomer; there are practically _always_ a one-way path in each > side of the street in Copenhagen and the rest of Denmark. Two-way > cycleways are quite rare. > > I was a bit unclear. "copenhagen-style bike lane" = single way by default. I was suggesting that "cycleway=track", tagged on a road, would mean a *two-way* copenhagen-style bike lane, because "cycleway=*" is two-way by default, track= means segregated from other traffic, and that's what the logical combination of those two ideas would mean. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
While we're about it, there's a few other potential values for cycleway (for interest mainly): cycleway=buslane (shared with buses) cycleway=filterlane (explicitly shared with nearside-turning traffic) cycleway=tight (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is <3.1m wide cycleway=spacious (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is >3.7m wide, more if typical traffic speed is faster than 40kph) cycleway=critical (nearside lane is shared with traffic and between tight and spacious) Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
Could you point us to an example, please? Richard On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. > > Incidentally, OSMArender draws cycleway=track in a style suggesting > that there's a bikepath in both sides of the street. > > Cheers, > Morten > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. Incidentally, OSMArender draws cycleway=track in a style suggesting that there's a bikepath in both sides of the street. Cheers, Morten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote: > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. If "copenhagen-style" refers to the danish capital, this is something of a misnomer; there are practically _always_ a one-way path in each side of the street in Copenhagen and the rest of Denmark. Two-way cycleways are quite rare. Cheers, Morten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Richard Mann > wrote: > >> I wasn't aware of any distinction between cycleway=track and >> highway=cycleway, other than that the first doesn't render (yet) and the >> second renders badly. > > I don't think there's much difference in nature, There is no difference. Please read the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway The only difference is that "cycleway=track" is added to a highway=secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential/etc when only one way is drawn for cars and bikes (most probably because it is surveyed from a car) and the highway=cycleway attached to a way drawn separately from the main road (and most probably because it is surveyed with a bike). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > I wasn't aware of any distinction between cycleway=track and > highway=cycleway, other than that the first doesn't render (yet) and the > second renders badly. I don't think there's much difference in nature, it's more a difference in the way of tagging - it's comparable to the difference between tagging a POI and using exactly the same tag on an area: Both can be used to tag the same situation. Still, the larger something is, the more chance the mapper will use the area possibility. The same for cycleway=track vs. highway=cycleway: The more tenuous the connection between cycleway and road, the more chance that the cycleway will get a separate way. I have stated where I put the boundary, but I think it's unavoidable that different mappers will put the boundary different, I even know there are some who never use cycleway=track, but always render separately. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I wasn't aware of any distinction between cycleway=track and > highway=cycleway, other than that the first doesn't render (yet) and the > second renders badly. > > There is officially not one, but: 1) highway=cycleway is by definition used away from roads 2) cycleway=track is by definition used on ways that are also roads (or possibly something else) - it is redundant if highway=cycleway 3) therefore, it is highly likely that people are/will use them to mean two different things. Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
I think Steve meant "adjacent to the roadway such that you can move onto/across the roadway at your convenience". This adjacency is important in jurisdictions where cyclists are allowed to do this (ie where the use of the lane/track is optional), and where there are a significant prevalence of side-roads that you can only access by moving across the general traffic (rather than turning at a signal-controlled junction). There's also quite a lot of evidence that being adjacent to the roadway has advantages from a safety point of view (cars are a lot more likely to see you). They also tend to be a bit faster / less obstructed. I wasn't aware of any distinction between cycleway=track and highway=cycleway, other than that the first doesn't render (yet) and the second renders badly. Richard On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > Yeah, but it's really just an enhanced bike lane - a path for bikes that > > closely follows the road. To me, the "follows the road" is the crucial > > distinction, so it's a kind of cycleway=lane, possibly with another tag. > > I disagree; cycleway=track and cycleway=lane both follow the road - if > they did not, I really think the cycleway should be drawn in > separately. To me, the crucial distinction is whether there is any > kind of 'barrier' between cycleway and the rest of the road. If there > is no barrier (but only stripes, colour difference or such), I use > cycleway=lane. If there is some (like a bump or a height difference, > such as here), I use cycleway=track. If the barrier has considerable > width (more than half a meter or so), I prefer to draw the cycleway > separately. > > > -- > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Yeah, but it's really just an enhanced bike lane - a path for bikes that > closely follows the road. To me, the "follows the road" is the crucial > distinction, so it's a kind of cycleway=lane, possibly with another tag. I disagree; cycleway=track and cycleway=lane both follow the road - if they did not, I really think the cycleway should be drawn in separately. To me, the crucial distinction is whether there is any kind of 'barrier' between cycleway and the rest of the road. If there is no barrier (but only stripes, colour difference or such), I use cycleway=lane. If there is some (like a bump or a height difference, such as here), I use cycleway=track. If the barrier has considerable width (more than half a meter or so), I prefer to draw the cycleway separately. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Richard Mann wrote: > I think the norm is to use British English on OSM. "Kerb" is a specialised > spelling of "curb" used only in this context (according to the Oxford > English Dictionary). Kerb is also US English for this (apparently). There > might be somewhere else that uses "curb" - Australia? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling) gives curb used Canada and US and kerb Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, UK & Ireland ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Richard Mann > > > > I'm tending towards cycleway=lane+segregated=kerb (or cycleway=track if > it's > > two-way) > > > > Not sure that cycleway=lane is best here since the cycleway is not > part of the car road. There is a real physical separation (the kerb or > curb) and even car parks between the car traffic and the bicycles. > This would better fit the cycleway=track definition beside the one or > two-way, imho. > > Yeah, but it's really just an enhanced bike lane - a path for bikes that closely follows the road. To me, the "follows the road" is the crucial distinction, so it's a kind of cycleway=lane, possibly with another tag. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
The Danish ones tend to be next to the road (and tend to become painted lanes on the approach to junctions). If there's anything more than a shallow kerb between the cycle-path and the road, then I'd agree - it's a track. Richard On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Richard Mann > > > > I'm tending towards cycleway=lane+segregated=kerb (or cycleway=track if > it's > > two-way) > > > > Not sure that cycleway=lane is best here since the cycleway is not > part of the car road. There is a real physical separation (the kerb or > curb) and even car parks between the car traffic and the bicycles. > This would better fit the cycleway=track definition beside the one or > two-way, imho. > > Pieren > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Richard Mann > > I'm tending towards cycleway=lane+segregated=kerb (or cycleway=track if it's > two-way) > Not sure that cycleway=lane is best here since the cycleway is not part of the car road. There is a real physical separation (the kerb or curb) and even car parks between the car traffic and the bicycles. This would better fit the cycleway=track definition beside the one or two-way, imho. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Regarding the "kerb" vs. "curb" question, the dictionary tells me that > "kerb" is british english, whereas "curb" is international english. I think > we want to stick with international english, right? > I think the norm is to use British English on OSM. "Kerb" is a specialised spelling of "curb" used only in this context (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). Kerb is also US English for this (apparently). There might be somewhere else that uses "curb" - Australia? I'm tending towards cycleway=lane+segregated=kerb (or cycleway=track if it's two-way) Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 06/12/2009, at 16.16, Dave F. wrote: > >> Unfortunately I couldn't view your photo, but going on Steve B.'s link, > > Oops, I forgot to attach the pictures. Try again :-) The first picture > is typical of a city street, where you'll often see cars parked on the > street along the cycleway. The second picture is a cycleway along a > larger road, typically leading into a city. (The sidewalk is on the > far side of the strip of grass.) > >> I'd map it separate from the road & tag it as highway=cycleway & leave >> it as that. >> It makes cycleway=track redundant: > > > We use this in several cases, however, we have so many cycleways here, > that in cities it becomes unmanagable to use separate ways. I am > willing to explain this in depth, but I don't want to introduce that > discussion in this thread. Can you give us synopsis? > > It is the feeling of the danish OSM community that we need to be able > to tag cycleways that are part of the road construct, separated with a > curbstone like seen in the two pictures below. I would, & have, tagged examples like these as highway=cycleway. The kerb/curb is the defined separating boundary in exactly the same way a grass verge or fence does. The fact cars block the way doesn't mean it's not separate. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > I'd map it separate from the road & tag it as highway=cycleway & leave >> it as that. >> It makes cycleway=track redundant: >> > > > We use this in several cases, however, we have so many cycleways here, that > in cities it becomes unmanagable to use separate ways. I am willing to > explain this in depth, but I don't want to introduce that discussion in this > thread. > Not sure I understand. When the cycleway is mapped entirely separate from the road, you mark it highway=cycleway. When it's physically separate, but mapped just by tagging the road, you mark it cycleway=track. When it's physically on the road with no barrier, you mark it cycleway=lane. Are you saying that that's what you're doing, and it's not enough? Or am I misunderstanding? It is the feeling of the danish OSM community that we need to be able to tag > cycleways that are part of the road construct, separated with a curbstone > like seen in the two pictures below. > So, you're saying that you want a finer distinction of cycleway=track, to distinguish paths that are physically at road level, and those that are at pedestrian level? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On 06/12/2009, at 16.16, Dave F. wrote: Unfortunately I couldn't view your photo, but going on Steve B.'s link, Oops, I forgot to attach the pictures. Try again :-) The first picture is typical of a city street, where you'll often see cars parked on the street along the cycleway. The second picture is a cycleway along a larger road, typically leading into a city. (The sidewalk is on the far side of the strip of grass.) I'd map it separate from the road & tag it as highway=cycleway & leave it as that. It makes cycleway=track redundant: We use this in several cases, however, we have so many cycleways here, that in cities it becomes unmanagable to use separate ways. I am willing to explain this in depth, but I don't want to introduce that discussion in this thread. It is the feeling of the danish OSM community that we need to be able to tag cycleways that are part of the road construct, separated with a curbstone like seen in the two pictures below. Regarding the "kerb" vs. "curb" question, the dictionary tells me that "kerb" is british english, whereas "curb" is international english. I think we want to stick with international english, right? Cheers, Morten <><>___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Hi,... > Unfortunately I couldn't view your photo, but going on Steve B.'s link, I'd map it separate from the road & tag it as highway=cycleway & leave it as that. It makes cycleway=track redundant: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > But in the end, clarity is all that is required, so cycleway=kerb probably > does the job. > > I would go for "kerb" rather than "curb", though. "Curb" is more of a > general word for restrictions. > > Cycleway=kerb really doesn't bring to mind Copenhagen lanes - it sounds like the cycleway is on the kerb itself (ie, at pedestrian level). Given that pedestrian-level cycleways do exist: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.819645,144.968628&z=21&t=k it seems confusing - and we might want that tag later. cycleway=barrier cycleway=separated_lane cycleway=kerb_separated ? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
In the UK the distinction between lane and track is essentially that tracks are not part of the road, so you are allowed to travel in the "wrong" direction, albeit that there's a bit of an accident problem when crossing side roads :( So I think of the Danish lanes/tracks as a kerb-separated lane, which would probably logically lead to a tagging structure like: cycleway=lane+segregated=yes|kerb But in the end, clarity is all that is required, so cycleway=kerb probably does the job. I would go for "kerb" rather than "curb", though. "Curb" is more of a general word for restrictions. Richard On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Hi, > > From recent discussions on the talk-dk list, it seems that all > mappers who have spoken out agree that the current scheme for tagging > cycleways [0] is not adequate for conditions in Denmark. > > The currently available values on the cycleway key are: lane and track > (apart from the opposite* values, which are not relevant here.) From > the description and images given in [0]: > > * lane is a bicycle route that is separated from the driveway with > a painted line on the pavement. > * track is a bicycle route that is separate from the road. On the > picture, it is separated by a strip of grass. > > In Denmark, especially in urban areas, cycleways are almost always > constructed using curbstones. I've attached a small photo to show you > what that looks like. Often, you find cars parked like seen on the > picture. Until know, the consensus has been to tag these using > "cycleway=track". However, it is the consensus of the danish mappers > that we would like an option to specifically tag the curb-delimited > cycleway. > > We considered proposing: > > cycleway=curb > > which is short, but as someone pointed out, you don't actually ride > the bike on the curb like you do the track or the lane. Alternatively > we could use: > > cycleway=curb_delimited > > which is more accurate. A different approach altogether would be to > use something like: > > cycleway=yes delimited:cycleway=curb > > Here, "delimited" is qualified because the delimiter could refer to > another part of the construction (e.g. the road itself or a footway). > This form is more general, since delimited:cycleway=* could have other > values like grass, fence, ditch, etc. > > It would be useful with a bit of feedback from the international OSM > community! > > Cheers, > Morten > > > [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > * lane is a bicycle route that is separated from the driveway with > a painted line on the pavement. > * track is a bicycle route that is separate from the road. On the > picture, it is separated by a strip of grass. > > In Denmark, especially in urban areas, cycleways are almost always > constructed using curbstones. These are known, in Australia at least, as "Copenhagen-style bike lanes". (Seems to have limited use outside Australia, from a quick google.) Before: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=fitzroy+st,+st+kilda&sll=-38.03872,146.30971&sspn=0.166566,0.309677&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Fitzroy+St,+St+Kilda+VIC+3182,+Australia&ll=-37.859067,144.978284&spn=0.000652,0.001721&t=h&z=20 After: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.859191,144.978019&z=21&t=k > cycleway=curb_delimited That has the problem that some parts of the world spell it "kerb". > which is more accurate. A different approach altogether would be to > use something like: > > cycleway=yes delimited:cycleway=curb > I think it should definitely be a kind of cycleway, rather than an extra option: cycleway=protected cycleway=copenhagen cycleway=segregated_lane ... You would definitely want to tag it two-way or one-way though. I think one-way is more common, but the example I pasted has both directions on the one side of the street. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
Hi, From recent discussions on the talk-dk list, it seems that all mappers who have spoken out agree that the current scheme for tagging cycleways [0] is not adequate for conditions in Denmark. The currently available values on the cycleway key are: lane and track (apart from the opposite* values, which are not relevant here.) From the description and images given in [0]: * lane is a bicycle route that is separated from the driveway with a painted line on the pavement. * track is a bicycle route that is separate from the road. On the picture, it is separated by a strip of grass. In Denmark, especially in urban areas, cycleways are almost always constructed using curbstones. I've attached a small photo to show you what that looks like. Often, you find cars parked like seen on the picture. Until know, the consensus has been to tag these using "cycleway=track". However, it is the consensus of the danish mappers that we would like an option to specifically tag the curb-delimited cycleway. We considered proposing: cycleway=curb which is short, but as someone pointed out, you don't actually ride the bike on the curb like you do the track or the lane. Alternatively we could use: cycleway=curb_delimited which is more accurate. A different approach altogether would be to use something like: cycleway=yes delimited:cycleway=curb Here, "delimited" is qualified because the delimiter could refer to another part of the construction (e.g. the road itself or a footway). This form is more general, since delimited:cycleway=* could have other values like grass, fence, ditch, etc. It would be useful with a bit of feedback from the international OSM community! Cheers, Morten [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
