Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Nick Bolten]

Sorry for being late to the party!

My understanding is that there isn't a documented tagging strategy for a
marked cycle lane crossing that's mapped as on a street way.

cycleway=crossing covers this scenario if the cycleway has been separately
mapped, so I wonder if a proposal for a tag like cycleway:
right:lane=crossing would be a logical extension. It could be applied to
the street way from the start of the crossing to the end of the crossing.

Specifying the crossing type (if necessary) could lead to an awkwardly long
key, as the nested would always need a side-of-street reference, like
cycleway:right:lane:crossing=uncontrolled. Maybe there should just be one
tag: cycleway:right: crossing=yes/no/uncontrolled (whatever that
means)/unmarked.

Best,

Nick

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 7:13 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I do have a topological problem with the mapping of a junction of two
> roads one of which has parallel cycle lanesa and sidewalks
> Both are correctly mapped: the sidewalk as a separate highwy=footway and
> the cycle lanes as cycleway:left|right=lane.
> How to you tag the foot-cycle crossings.
> See this Mapillary photo
>  to make things
> clearer.
> Two possible options:
>
> (1)
> way with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> footway=crossing
> highway=footway
> plus node with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> highway=crossing
>
> (2)
> way with:
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated
> highway=path
> path=crossing
> segregated=yes
> plus node with:
> bicycle=yes
> crossing=uncontrolled
> highway=crossing
>
> Both are "incorrect" in some aspects.
> Which one is less incorrect?
> Is there a better tagging solution?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[marc marc]

Le 27.11.19 à 17:42, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 27. Nov 2019, at 17:36, marc marc  wrote:
>>
>> I don't see a physical séparator between the road and the sidewalk
>> so it's controversial to separate these different lanes into several ways
> 
> afaik the highway represents a carriageway, sidewalks are not considered part 
> of the carriageway

so no highway=* at all for sidewalks :)

>  in the UN Vienna agreement on road traffic.

let's have 2 objets in the UN Vienna database.
but osm isn't a UN Vienna database, isn't it ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Nov 2019, at 18:31, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Tagging sidewalks as tags is certainly a valid method
> of doing this. Some regions prefer tagging
> sidewalks as a separate ways,
> for example Poland.


adding sidewalk tags to a highway doesn’t necessarily imply we see them as part 
of a carriageway, it simply states there is a sidewalk along the 
road/carriageway. 

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Nov 2019, at 18:31, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Note that OSM tagging is not obligated to follow
> UN Vienna agreement definitions.


I know, but there’s a lot of thought in this document, so it makes sense to see 
how they did handle things.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Markus]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 17:36, marc marc  wrote:
>
> I don't see a physical séparator between the road and the sidewalk
> so it's controversial to separate these different lanes into several ways

There's a curb, although a very low one. (Ironically, it is highest at
the zebra crossing ... not the best example of accessible and safe
pedestrian infrastructure ...)

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27 Nov 2019, 17:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 27. Nov 2019, at 17:36, marc marc  wrote:
>>
>> I don't see a physical séparator between the road and the sidewalk
>> so it's controversial to separate these different lanes into several ways
>>
>
>
> afaik the highway represents a carriageway, sidewalks are not considered part 
> of the carriageway in the UN Vienna agreement on road traffic.
>
Note that OSM tagging is not obligated to followUN Vienna agreement definitions.
Tagging sidewalks as tags is certainly a valid method
of doing this. Some regions prefer tagging
sidewalks as a separate ways,
for example Poland.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Markus]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 16:13, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> (1)
> way with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> footway=crossing
> highway=footway
> plus node with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> highway=crossing

I'd tag it like that. I don't see any problems. You don't need a
crossing node for the cycle lane as it is part of the carriageway of
Via Egidio Forcellini. This is different form the sidewalk that is
interrupted by the unnamed one-way road.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[John Sturdy]

I think of highway=path as referring to a standalone path, such as a hiking
trail, and not part of a set of parallel ways.

__John

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:13 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I do have a topological problem with the mapping of a junction of two
> roads one of which has parallel cycle lanesa and sidewalks
> Both are correctly mapped: the sidewalk as a separate highwy=footway and
> the cycle lanes as cycleway:left|right=lane.
> How to you tag the foot-cycle crossings.
> See this Mapillary photo
>  to make things
> clearer.
> Two possible options:
>
> (1)
> way with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> footway=crossing
> highway=footway
> plus node with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> highway=crossing
>
> (2)
> way with:
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated
> highway=path
> path=crossing
> segregated=yes
> plus node with:
> bicycle=yes
> crossing=uncontrolled
> highway=crossing
>
> Both are "incorrect" in some aspects.
> Which one is less incorrect?
> Is there a better tagging solution?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Nov 2019, at 17:36, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> I don't see a physical séparator between the road and the sidewalk
> so it's controversial to separate these different lanes into several ways


afaik the highway represents a carriageway, sidewalks are not considered part 
of the carriageway in the UN Vienna agreement on road traffic.


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[marc marc]

Le 27.11.19 à 16:11, Volker Schmidt a écrit :
> I do have a topological problem with the mapping of a junction of two
> roads one of which has parallel cycle lanesa and sidewalks
> Both are correctly mapped: the sidewalk as a separate highwy=footway 

I don't see a physical séparator between the road and the sidewalk
so it's controversial to separate these different lanes into several ways

> (1)
> way with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> footway=crossing
> highway=footway
> plus node with:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> highway=crossing

look fine

> (2)
> way with:
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated
> highway=path
> path=crossing
> segregated=yes

mixing cycleway tagged as an attribute (before/after the crossing)
and as a seprated path (at the crossing) is imho a bad idea.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

[Volker Schmidt]

I do have a topological problem with the mapping of a junction of two roads
one of which has parallel cycle lanesa and sidewalks
Both are correctly mapped: the sidewalk as a separate highwy=footway and
the cycle lanes as cycleway:left|right=lane.
How to you tag the foot-cycle crossings.
See this Mapillary photo
 to make things
clearer.
Two possible options:

(1)
way with:
crossing=uncontrolled
footway=crossing
highway=footway
plus node with:
crossing=uncontrolled
highway=crossing

(2)
way with:
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
highway=path
path=crossing
segregated=yes
plus node with:
bicycle=yes
crossing=uncontrolled
highway=crossing

Both are "incorrect" in some aspects.
Which one is less incorrect?
Is there a better tagging solution?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging