On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 02:05, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hazard tag seems to be used when there is a sign, so I'm not confident to
> use it for doorzone.
>
> There is two choices :
> 1. describe the layout of the street lanes + cyclelanes + : parking lane +
>
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Florimond Berthoux
wrote:
>
> Hazard tag seems to be used when there is a sign, so I'm not confident to use
> it for doorzone.
>
> There is two choices :
> 1. describe the layout of the street lanes + cyclelanes + : parking lane +
> sidewalk
> then add the widt of
i 2020 om 15:49 schreef :
>
>> Hmm okay, convinced. I only hope noone else comes with that topic later
>> again then, but to me it's ok.
>>
>> -- Lukas
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 14:15 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Andrew Harvey"
>> *An:
good idea so or so to order the use a cycleway "gives" to cyclists at least in some way at all.
--Lukas
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 17:02 Uhr
Von: lukas-...@web.de
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
Oh Yes I agree, it's
) together with a warning taken from the tagging.
--Lukas
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 16:14 Uhr
Von: "Peter Elderson"
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
Seems to me that the hazard is a general hazard applyin
uot;Andrew Harvey"
> *An:* "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
>
>
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>>
>&
d than cyclists often have, but if we want
> to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 05. Mai 2020 um 04:56 Uhr
> *Von:* "Andrew Harvey"
> *An:* "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools&qu
Hmm okay, convinced. I only hope noone else comes with that topic later again then, but to me it's ok.
-- Lukas
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 14:15 Uhr
Von: "Andrew Harvey"
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lane
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 6. May 2020, at 13:20, lukas-...@web.de wrote:
> >
> > I agree with that, but then note that for "justice" we would need a
> foot:doorzone=yes, too, because when a sidewalk is in the parking car's
> doorzone
sent from a phone
> On 6. May 2020, at 13:20, lukas-...@web.de wrote:
>
> I agree with that, but then note that for "justice" we would need a
> foot:doorzone=yes, too, because when a sidewalk is in the parking car's
> doorzone (I think most sidewalks next to parking:lane=parallel are), there
think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.
Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Mai 2020 um 04:56 Uhr
Von: "Andrew Harvey"
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 02:35, Jan Michel <j...@
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 18:45, Marc M. wrote:
> Le 05.05.20 à 04:56, Andrew Harvey a écrit :
> > cycleway:both:hazard becomes an issue when there are multiple hazards
> > that apply, so "doorzone" should be part of the key not the value.
>
> ; is a common separator
> =value1;value2;value3
> for ex
Le 05.05.20 à 04:56, Andrew Harvey a écrit :
> cycleway:both:hazard becomes an issue when there are multiple hazards
> that apply, so "doorzone" should be part of the key not the value.
; is a common separator
=value1;value2;value3
for ex
sent from a phone
> On 5. May 2020, at 04:58, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> The third scenario for dooring is just a regular road with no bicycle
> infrastructure, but parked cars can still lead to dooring eg
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6YlYnuZPdlziwUsF1m7yWA
in this case arguably it’s
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 02:35, Jan Michel wrote:
> On 03.05.20 19:16, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I would advocate a more generic approach that remains open to other
> > types of hazards (there are many, unfortunately).
> > A generic
> >
>
You are right that in case of cycling infrastructure tagged on the road
(like typically cycling lanes) we need a way to indicate to which part of
the road it refers, in addition to the type of haxard.
Il lun 4 mag 2020, 18:35 Jan Michel ha scritto:
> On 03.05.20 19:16, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
On 03.05.20 19:16, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I would advocate a more generic approach that remains open to other
types of hazards (there are many, unfortunately).
A generic
hazard:bicycle=yes|dooring|pedestrians_on_cycleway|dangerous_exit|whatever
I agree, but I would rather use
I would advocate a more generic approach that remains open to other types
of hazards (there are many, unfortunately).
A generic
hazard:bicycle=yes|dooring|pedestrians_on_cycleway|dangerous_exit|whatever
(I have started using provisionally
hazard:bicycle=yes plus description= but that needs
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 00:30, Hubert87 wrote:
> (Two replies is one)
>
> Am 03.05.2020 um 15:29 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
>
> On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:14, Hubert87 wrote:
>
>> I like the idea of using "buffered".
>>
>> "doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective.
>>
>
> I don't see it as
(Two replies is one)
Am 03.05.2020 um 15:29 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:14, Hubert87 mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de>> wrote:
I like the idea of using "buffered".
"doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective.
I don't see it as subjective. If there is parking
sent from a phone
> On 3. May 2020, at 10:52, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> I still would learn towards cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes as being my preferred
> option though, since you can tag =no as well.
do you really need the lane component?
Could be cycleway:doorzone=yes/no
or with left/right
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:32, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Here in Italy we do have both cycle lanes, cycle paths, and foot-cycle
> paths with dooring risk. So far I have not seen any tagging for these, but
> I would welcome a uniform approach for tagging this hazard on any type of
> cycling
I've started sketching this out at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:cycleway:lane:doorzone
but
I think we need more examples of the full range of scenarios as I've only
got two so far.
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:35, Hubert87 wrote:
> Meant to also add a discriptive tag,
Meant to also add a discriptive tag, like
cycleway:right:parking_lane=right/left/both/no/yes
Am 03.05.2020 um 15:12 schrieb Hubert87:
I like the idea of using "buffered".
"doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective.
Maybe something like:
cycleway:right=lane
Here in Italy we do have both cycle lanes, cycle paths, and foot-cycle
paths with dooring risk. So far I have not seen any tagging for these, but
I would welcome a uniform approach for tagging this hazard on any type of
cycling infrastructure, and it should be a hazard tag. In that context I
would
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:14, Hubert87 wrote:
> I like the idea of using "buffered".
>
> "doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective.
>
I don't see it as subjective. If there is parking directly next to the
bicycle lane and if a parked car opening a door would intersect with the
marked
I like the idea of using "buffered".
"doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective.
Maybe something like:
cycleway:right=lane
cycleway:right:lane=exclusive
(cycleway:right:buffered=right/left/both/no)
cycleway:right:buffered:right=yes/no/0.3(m)
Yours
Hubert87
Am 03.05.2020 um 10:55
Hi Florimond,
On 03.05.20 11:04, Florimond Berthoux wrote:
And I'd say yes also for :
cycleway:lane:exclusive
In which case is this tag needed? A cycleway=lane shouldn't be shared
with anybody else, and we already have values for shared lanes, e.g.
share_busway or shared_lane.
On 03/05/2020 07:37, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> For a while myself and others have been using cycleway:lane=doorzone to
> say the bicycle lane is in a doorzone, I've now added documentation of
> this as "in use"
> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:lane. However this
> conflicts with
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 18:56, Jan Michel wrote:
> Hi,
> I oppose adding this officially to the top-level cycleway:lane tag.
> I see this information as one more property of the cycleway, like
> surface, smoothness, width and so on.
>
> We already have a documented key 'cycleway:buffer' that is
Hi,
I'm happy to see that doorzone tag is used, I think it's a good way to
evaluate bad cycle infrastructure.
Le dim. 3 mai 2020 à 10:52, Andrew Harvey a
écrit :
>
>
> On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 18:17, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>> I am not completely sure, if I get this right, do you mean the
Hi,
I oppose adding this officially to the top-level cycleway:lane tag.
I see this information as one more property of the cycleway, like
surface, smoothness, width and so on.
We already have a documented key 'cycleway:buffer' that is described
as the width of the buffer space between car lanes
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 18:17, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I am not completely sure, if I get this right, do you mean the area where
> a door that is opened, would intersect with the space of a cycle lane?
>
Exactly, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dooring. Personally when
riding I use
sent from a phone
> On 3. May 2020, at 08:39, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> For a while myself and others have been using cycleway:lane=doorzone to say
> the bicycle lane is in a doorzone,
I am not completely sure, if I get this right, do you mean the area where a
door that is opened, would
34 matches
Mail list logo
