Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track
Thanks everyone for the comments! althio wrote: > My preference would be to keep the geometry, map it as a continuous > highway=cycleway. > For the bits without divider, I don't like protected=no however. > I would go with no additional tagging, and more geometry (as you said: > crossings and junctions), and let the geometry speaks. On balance I agree and I'll go for this solution. Please send out a search party if I haven't returned in three days from the maze of nested relations that is cycle routes in East London. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 16:14 althio, wrote: > Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied > with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1]. > I do not see any problem with that. I have been including roads with cycleway=lane routinely in bicycle routes. > > > ... or ... > ... maybe ... > ... I don't know if I should ... > Apparently highway=cycleway + cycleway=lane is already in use > 1500 uses in > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane#combinations > So either some people are mistagging, or the wiki needs to be updated > to the practice > This looks very wrong to me. It indicates a cycling lane on a cycleway. When I encounter this tagging I change it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track
> This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry. > [...] Breaking geometry to enable tagging is bad in itself, misleading on > renderings, and unsurprisingly confuses the heck out of routers. Indeed. Either as cycleway=track/lane on car road (all along) or as a separate way (all along), both not like this. For me, adding geometry gives additional information and accuracy, more clarity + "easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.)" Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1]. My preference would be to keep the geometry, map it as a continuous highway=cycleway. For the bits without divider, I don't like protected=no however. I would go with no additional tagging, and more geometry (as you said: crossings and junctions), and let the geometry speaks. ... or ... ... maybe ... ... I don't know if I should ... Apparently highway=cycleway + cycleway=lane is already in use 1500 uses in https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane#combinations So either some people are mistagging, or the wiki needs to be updated to the practice. -- althio [1]: if I am somehow wrong and it is indeed (remotely) possible to apply route relation membership with namespacing, I beg, please leave me ignorant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track
Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem: > cycleway:left=track > cycleway:left:width=3 > cycleway:left:surface=asphalt > ... > if the cycleway is a track it can become a problem, because tracks tend to have different properties than the road, and now you will have to split the road also for every change of every property of a different carriageway (the cycleway), which doesn't seem right and which makes maintenance harder. It isn't a big problem as long as you do not map many details or accurately map changes in properties, or if they do not vary. It also makes it harder to understand how the position of other objects relates to the cycleway and to the road (are they between the road and the cycleway or further than the cycleway? etc.) and it makes it impossible to map geometric shapes and transitions of the cycleway which are different from the road. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track
Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem: cycleway:left=track cycleway:left:width=3 cycleway:left:surface=asphalt ... On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 12:01 Tobias Zwick, wrote: > Hi Richard > > I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road > itself. I don't see the namespacing as an issue here. > > The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be > tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the > road by more than a curb, such as scrub or a tree row. In other words, so > that bicyclists can not simply cross onto the street at any point without a > dedicated crossing. > > Tobias > > Am 27. März 2019 11:31:18 MEZ schrieb Richard Fairhurst > : > >Hi all, > > > >Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways: > > > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715 > >https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254&lon=-0.0335&zoom=17 > > > >You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to > >me, > >it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be > >right. > > > >In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight > > > >route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier > >separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at > >junctions > >and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example > >(apologies for Google link): > > > >https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp > > > >Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated > >bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane) > > > >where the barrier gives out. > > > >This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry. > >The > >current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have > >to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable > >tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly > >confuses the heck out of routers. > > > >How should we represent this? > > > >My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous > >highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the > >concrete > >divider isn't there. > > > >Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and > >just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as > > > >you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the > >cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of > >namespacing. > > > >Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on > > > >the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags > > > >and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there > >because we have a junction which cars can turn across. > > > >Any preferences? > > > >cheers > >Richard > > > >___ > >Tagging mailing list > >Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > 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] Intermittently unprotected cycle track
Hi Richard I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road itself. I don't see the namespacing as an issue here. The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the road by more than a curb, such as scrub or a tree row. In other words, so that bicyclists can not simply cross onto the street at any point without a dedicated crossing. Tobias Am 27. März 2019 11:31:18 MEZ schrieb Richard Fairhurst : >Hi all, > >Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715 >https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254&lon=-0.0335&zoom=17 > >You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to >me, >it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be >right. > >In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight > >route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier >separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at >junctions >and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example >(apologies for Google link): > >https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp > >Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated >bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane) > >where the barrier gives out. > >This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry. >The >current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have >to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable >tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly >confuses the heck out of routers. > >How should we represent this? > >My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous >highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the >concrete >divider isn't there. > >Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and >just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as > >you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the >cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of >namespacing. > >Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on > >the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags > >and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there >because we have a junction which cars can turn across. > >Any preferences? > >cheers >Richard > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track
Hi all, Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715 https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254&lon=-0.0335&zoom=17 You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to me, it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be right. In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at junctions and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example (apologies for Google link): https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane) where the barrier gives out. This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry. The current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly confuses the heck out of routers. How should we represent this? My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the concrete divider isn't there. Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of namespacing. Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there because we have a junction which cars can turn across. Any preferences? cheers Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
