Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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 +
> sidewalk
> then add the widt of the cycle lane.
> Data consumer can deduce if the lane is dangerous or not
> + objective
> + complete without feature tagged twice
> - harder to compute doorzone state
> - harder to tag (a cyclist willing to tag doorzone has to tag parking
> lanes and width)
>
> example :
> cycleway=lane
> cycleway:width=1m
> parking:lane=parallel
>
> => doorzone
>
> (I could add more tags, for buffer, but I keep simple as possible.)
>
> 2. just tag doorzone feature
> (opposite arguments +/-)
>
> example :
> cycleway=lane
> cycleway:left:doorzone=yes
>
> Before writing this email I was not pro 1., but it's only 2 tags against
> 1, problem is that you must measure the lane and that is little difficult
> (our eyes are bad at that).
> At the end if the two way of tagging is documented for doorzone I'm ok
> with both.
>

I agree there are the two approaches, both can co-exist. I think (1) alone
is a tad too fragile especially since if the cyclelane is a doorzone or not
depends on the buffer and layout, I think it's safer to have a tag like (2)
to specifically say the cyclelane is a doorzone.



On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 15:33, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> but in the end, someone will probably have to add
> parking:lane=parallel as well, not? The second style of mapping
> nothing says nothing about the parking lane. Or does
> cycleway:left:doorzone=yes implies parking:lane:left=parallel?
>

Yes the parking:lane tag should also be added together with the doorzone
tag, I guess you could say it's implied, but it would be a pain for both
data consumers and mappers to rely on this kind of implication, better to
always tag it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

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 the cycle lane.
> Data consumer can deduce if the lane is dangerous or not
> + objective
> + complete without feature tagged twice
> - harder to compute doorzone state
> - harder to tag (a cyclist willing to tag doorzone has to tag parking lanes 
> and width)
>
> example :
> cycleway=lane
> cycleway:width=1m
> parking:lane=parallel
>
> => doorzone
>
> (I could add more tags, for buffer, but I keep simple as possible.)
>
> 2. just tag doorzone feature
> (opposite arguments +/-)
>
> example :
> cycleway=lane
> cycleway:left:doorzone=yes
>

but in the end, someone will probably have to add
parking:lane=parallel as well, not? The second style of mapping
nothing says nothing about the parking lane. Or does
cycleway:left:doorzone=yes implies parking:lane:left=parallel?

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Florimond Berthoux]

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 the cycle lane.
Data consumer can deduce if the lane is dangerous or not
+ objective
+ complete without feature tagged twice
- harder to compute doorzone state
- harder to tag (a cyclist willing to tag doorzone has to tag parking lanes
and width)

example :
cycleway=lane
cycleway:width=1m
parking:lane=parallel

=> doorzone

(I could add more tags, for buffer, but I keep simple as possible.)

2. just tag doorzone feature
(opposite arguments +/-)

example :
cycleway=lane
cycleway:left:doorzone=yes

Before writing this email I was not pro 1., but it's only 2 tags against 1,
problem is that you must measure the lane and that is little difficult (our
eyes are bad at that).
At the end if the two way of tagging is documented for doorzone I'm ok with
both.

Le mer. 6 mai 2020 à 16:16, Peter Elderson  a écrit :

> Seems to me that the hazard is a general hazard applying to all mixed
> traffic/parking situations. I would not map such a general hazard. Mapping
> events and risks, unless indicated by signage or markings, doesn't seem
> like a good idea to me.
>
> In specific cases the hazard may deserve mapping, then it should be tied
> to specific OSM-objects, I think. If a parking "lane" is next to a
> cycle-lane, then you might want to see that when rendering or weigh in/warn
> when routing.
>
> In that case I think maybe the best solution is to map the parking "lane"
> next to the cycling lane. The hazard then follows from the proximity.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op wo 6 mei 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:* "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:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because
>>> pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want
>>> to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it.
>>> Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs
>>> in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many
>>> hazards if you think it through...
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed
>> as the concept only applies to bicycles.
>> ___ 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
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Lukas-458]

Or use class:bicycle=* for classification of those ways, but I still know it's a tag which might be non-specific, "as someones likes it" and with an individual taste. But it puts several things which have influence on how suitable/useful a cycleway is together, so I think it might be a 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 the same thing like that that (nearly) all railway=platforms have the risk that a passing-by train appears, and that's also a very general hazard implied by the situation. Or when there's a street with a very narrow sidewalk. It would be tagged by sidewalk:left:width=*, but to me all those things would "crash the system" if they all get a hazard=* value or any similar tagging.

 

Also, the width of the cycleway would play a role concerning dooring. If it's wide, cyclists can hold a distance. Maybe routers should combine this information (when available) 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 applying to all mixed traffic/parking situations. I would not map such a general hazard. Mapping events and risks, unless indicated by signage or markings, doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
 

In specific cases the hazard may deserve mapping, then it should be tied to specific OSM-objects, I think. If a parking "lane" is next to a cycle-lane, then you might want to see that when rendering or weigh in/warn when routing.

 

In that case I think maybe the best solution is to map the parking "lane" next to the cycling lane. The hazard then follows from the proximity.

 

Best, Peter Elderson

 

 


Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 15:49 schreef <lukas-...@web.de>:




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" <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
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 <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 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 (I think most sidewalks next to parking:lane=parallel are), there is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.



indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it. Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many hazards if you think it through...
;-)

 

I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed as the concept only applies to bicycles.


___ 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




___ 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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Lukas-458]

Oh Yes I agree, it's the same thing like that that (nearly) all railway=platforms have the risk that a passing-by train appears, and that's also a very general hazard implied by the situation. Or when there's a street with a very narrow sidewalk. It would be tagged by sidewalk:left:width=*, but to me all those things would "crash the system" if they all get a hazard=* value or any similar tagging.

 

Also, the width of the cycleway would play a role concerning dooring. If it's wide, cyclists can hold a distance. Maybe routers should combine this information (when available) 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 applying to all mixed traffic/parking situations. I would not map such a general hazard. Mapping events and risks, unless indicated by signage or markings, doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
 

In specific cases the hazard may deserve mapping, then it should be tied to specific OSM-objects, I think. If a parking "lane" is next to a cycle-lane, then you might want to see that when rendering or weigh in/warn when routing.

 

In that case I think maybe the best solution is to map the parking "lane" next to the cycling lane. The hazard then follows from the proximity.

 

Best, Peter Elderson

 

 


Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 15:49 schreef <lukas-...@web.de>:




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" <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
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 <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 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 (I think most sidewalks next to parking:lane=parallel are), there is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.



indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it. Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many hazards if you think it through...
;-)

 

I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed as the concept only applies to bicycles.


___ 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




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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Peter Elderson]

Seems to me that the hazard is a general hazard applying to all mixed
traffic/parking situations. I would not map such a general hazard. Mapping
events and risks, unless indicated by signage or markings, doesn't seem
like a good idea to me.

In specific cases the hazard may deserve mapping, then it should be tied to
specific OSM-objects, I think. If a parking "lane" is next to a cycle-lane,
then you might want to see that when rendering or weigh in/warn when
routing.

In that case I think maybe the best solution is to map the parking "lane"
next to the cycling lane. The hazard then follows from the proximity.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 6 mei 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:* "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:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because
>> pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want
>> to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.
>>
>>
>>
>> indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it.
>> Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs
>> in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many
>> hazards if you think it through...
>> ;-)
>
>
> I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed
> as the concept only applies to bicycles.
> ___ 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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Volker Schmidt]

My thinking was more general, more along the lines of these old proposals
Talk:Proposed features/hazard
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/hazard>
i.e. a structured tagging appraoch for hazards of all types.
For my taste "dooring" is one type of many that may be of interest to
cyclists (incidently: the "dooring" hazard is a "cyclists-passing-close-by"
hazard for motorists)
I want to have easy means to find all hazards for cyclists an a given
route, or also I want a router to be able to take into account the hazards
when selecting a route.
Maybe we should start out with a list of possible hazard types, to get a
better feeling on how we should approach this.

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:20,  wrote:

> "highway=path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone
> bicycle:doorzone=yes (the bicycle lane of the path,footway,cycleway is in
> a doorzone) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw
> <https://deref-web-02.de/mail/client/tX1wLGYFGQI/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mapillary.com%2Fmap%2Fim%2FewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw>
> "
>
> 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
> is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because
> pedestrians have much lower speed 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" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
> 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
>> >
>> hazard:bicycle=yes|dooring|pedestrians_on_cycleway|dangerous_exit|whatever
>>
>> I agree, but I would rather use
>> cycleway:(left|right|both|):hazard
>> 'hazard:bicycle' suggests that it is an hazard to all bicycles, but it's
>> more like an hazard that is a "feature" of the cycleway. Everybody close
>> to the cycleway is part of the hazard (whether active or passive) but
>> bicycles in other places of the road are not affected.
>
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 04:33, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Agree with Volker here.
>
> cycleway:both:hazard becomes an issue when there are multiple hazards that
> apply, so "doorzone" should be part of the key not the value.
>
> I originally proposed cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes but then since seeing
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw changed it to
> cycleway:doorzone=yes, but based on what Volker has said about indicating
> which part of the road it applies to maybe after all:
>
> cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes (both sides of the road have a
> doorzone cyclelane)
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/MXuDWHZY_R9UkGcOk0FZUw
> cycleway:lane:left:doorzone=yes (left side of the road has a doorzone
> cyclelane)
> cycleway:lane:right:doorzone=yes
>
> highway=path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone
> bicycle:doorzone=yes (the bicycle lane of the path,footway,cycleway is in
> a doorzone) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw
>
> 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 I guess in that
> case where there is no bicycle infrastructure the dooring hazard should be
> determined by a parking:lane:parallel=* and some kind of parking:lane
> buffer tag?
>
> Are there any other scenarios where dooring is a hazard?
> ___ 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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Lukas-458]

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 lanes



 
 


On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 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 (I think most sidewalks next to parking:lane=parallel are), there is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.



indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it. Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many hazards if you think it through...
;-)

 

I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed as the concept only applies to bicycles.


___ 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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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 (I think most sidewalks next to parking:lane=parallel are), there
> is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because
> pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want
> to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.
>
>
>
> indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it.
> Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs
> in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many
> hazards if you think it through...
> ;-)
>

I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed as
the concept only applies to bicycles.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 is 
> hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because pedestrians 
> have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want to tag that 
> hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.



indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it. Next 
thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs in case of 
storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many hazards if you 
think it through...
;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Lukas-458]

"highway=path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone
bicycle:doorzone=yes (the bicycle lane of the path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw"

 

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 is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because pedestrians have much lower speed 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" 
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes



On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 02:35, Jan Michel <j...@mueschelsoft.de> 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
cycleway:(left|right|both|):hazard
'hazard:bicycle' suggests that it is an hazard to all bicycles, but it's
more like an hazard that is a "feature" of the cycleway. Everybody close
to the cycleway is part of the hazard (whether active or passive) but
bicycles in other places of the road are not affected.

 


On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 04:33, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:



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.



 

Agree with Volker here.

 

cycleway:both:hazard becomes an issue when there are multiple hazards that apply, so "doorzone" should be part of the key not the value.


 

I originally proposed cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes but then since seeing https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw changed it to cycleway:doorzone=yes, but based on what Volker has said about indicating which part of the road it applies to maybe after all:

 

cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes (both sides of the road have a doorzone cyclelane) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/MXuDWHZY_R9UkGcOk0FZUw

cycleway:lane:left:doorzone=yes (left side of the road has a doorzone cyclelane)

cycleway:lane:right:doorzone=yes

 

highway=path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone

bicycle:doorzone=yes (the bicycle lane of the path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw

 

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 I guess in that case where there is no bicycle infrastructure the dooring hazard should be determined by a parking:lane:parallel=* and some kind of parking:lane buffer tag?

 

Are there any other scenarios where dooring is a hazard?


___ 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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/hazard=animal_crossing%3Baccident_area


I know this but for this kind of thing I'd much prefer the schema didn't
use ;. ; makes it much harder for data consumers and editors to deal with
and impossible for users to tag yes/no/buffer as values.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Marc M.]

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
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/hazard=animal_crossing%3Baccident_area

Regards,
Marc

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 up to the cyclist to keep sufficient distance from 
the parked cars

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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
> >
> hazard:bicycle=yes|dooring|pedestrians_on_cycleway|dangerous_exit|whatever
>
> I agree, but I would rather use
> cycleway:(left|right|both|):hazard
> 'hazard:bicycle' suggests that it is an hazard to all bicycles, but it's
> more like an hazard that is a "feature" of the cycleway. Everybody close
> to the cycleway is part of the hazard (whether active or passive) but
> bicycles in other places of the road are not affected.


On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 04:33, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> 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.
>

Agree with Volker here.

cycleway:both:hazard becomes an issue when there are multiple hazards that
apply, so "doorzone" should be part of the key not the value.

I originally proposed cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes but then since seeing
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw changed it to
cycleway:doorzone=yes, but based on what Volker has said about indicating
which part of the road it applies to maybe after all:

cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes (both sides of the road have a
doorzone cyclelane) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/MXuDWHZY_R9UkGcOk0FZUw
cycleway:lane:left:doorzone=yes (left side of the road has a doorzone
cyclelane)
cycleway:lane:right:doorzone=yes

highway=path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone
bicycle:doorzone=yes (the bicycle lane of the path,footway,cycleway is in a
doorzone) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw

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 I guess in that
case where there is no bicycle infrastructure the dooring hazard should be
determined by a parking:lane:parallel=* and some kind of parking:lane
buffer tag?

Are there any other scenarios where dooring is a hazard?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Volker Schmidt]

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:
> > 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
> cycleway:(left|right|both|):hazard
> 'hazard:bicycle' suggests that it is an hazard to all bicycles, but it's
> more like an hazard that is a "feature" of the cycleway. Everybody close
> to the cycleway is part of the hazard (whether active or passive) but
> bicycles in other places of the road are not affected.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/taggingäaa
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Jan Michel]

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
cycleway:(left|right|both|):hazard
'hazard:bicycle' suggests that it is an hazard to all bicycles, but it's 
more like an hazard that is a "feature" of the cycleway. Everybody close 
to the cycleway is part of the hazard (whether active or passive) but 
bicycles in other places of the road are not affected.



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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Volker Schmidt]

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 improvement)
Then you putthat that to whatever element is involved (way, crossing node,
gate, ...)

In the same way you could create hazard:foot (or hazard:pedestrian), and
hazard:wheelchair, and  hazard:motorcycle, and hazard:motorcar .

Or something along these lines ...




On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 16:42, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> 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 subjective. If there is parking directly next to the
>> bicycle lane and if a parked car opening a door would intersect with the
>> marked bicycle lane, then the bicycle lane is within a door zone. Is it the
>> term that's the issue or the concept? Judging by the wikipedia page
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doored it seems like a fairly widespread
>> term globally.
>>
>> I'm familiar with that term and the concept. However 'doorzone' (to me)
>> seems to have negativ implications (=> hazard), due to cyclists being
>> doored. (If I remeber corectly, cyclelanes/paths next to parking cars don't
>> seem to be a big problem in NL due to the "Dutch Reach", this is similar to
>> cyclist being right-hooked as it is inherend of the position of the
>> cycleway relativ to the carrigeway)
>>
>> So, I'd rather see the concept of "doorzone" be an emergend property of
>> multiple other tags (buffer, position of cycle lane, ...) derived by data
>> users/renderes/routers.
>>
> While that does sound better, it is also quite complex as you point out
> taking into account buffer, buffer distance, position of lanes but also
> relative ordering of the traffic, parking and bicycle lane, counterflow
> cycle lanes. Because of this a quick and simply "doorzone" tag I think is
> useful for mappers who don't want to go into such detail. It also makes it
> clear, otherwise there could always be a slight difference between data
> contributor expectation and data consumer given the complex evaluation
> without a dedicated door zone tag.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 00:19, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> do you really need the lane component?
>> Could be cycleway:doorzone=yes/no
>> or with left/right when lanes on both sides exist that have different
>> properties.
>>
>
> Agreed.
> ___
> 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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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 subjective. If there is parking directly next to the
> bicycle lane and if a parked car opening a door would intersect with the
> marked bicycle lane, then the bicycle lane is within a door zone. Is it the
> term that's the issue or the concept? Judging by the wikipedia page
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doored it seems like a fairly widespread
> term globally.
>
> I'm familiar with that term and the concept. However 'doorzone' (to me)
> seems to have negativ implications (=> hazard), due to cyclists being
> doored. (If I remeber corectly, cyclelanes/paths next to parking cars don't
> seem to be a big problem in NL due to the "Dutch Reach", this is similar to
> cyclist being right-hooked as it is inherend of the position of the
> cycleway relativ to the carrigeway)
>
> So, I'd rather see the concept of "doorzone" be an emergend property of
> multiple other tags (buffer, position of cycle lane, ...) derived by data
> users/renderes/routers.
>
While that does sound better, it is also quite complex as you point out
taking into account buffer, buffer distance, position of lanes but also
relative ordering of the traffic, parking and bicycle lane, counterflow
cycle lanes. Because of this a quick and simply "doorzone" tag I think is
useful for mappers who don't want to go into such detail. It also makes it
clear, otherwise there could always be a slight difference between data
contributor expectation and data consumer given the complex evaluation
without a dedicated door zone tag.



On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 00:19, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> do you really need the lane component?
> Could be cycleway:doorzone=yes/no
> or with left/right when lanes on both sides exist that have different
> properties.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Hubert87]

(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 directly next to the
bicycle lane and if a parked car opening a door would intersect with
the marked bicycle lane, then the bicycle lane is within a door zone.
Is it the term that's the issue or the concept? Judging by the
wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doored it seems like a
fairly widespread term globally.


I'm familiar with that term and the concept. However 'doorzone' (to me)
seems to have negativ implications (=> hazard), due to cyclists being
doored. (If I remeber corectly, cyclelanes/paths next to parking cars
don't seem to be a big problem in NL due to the "Dutch Reach", this is
similar to cyclist being right-hooked as it is inherend of the position
of the cycleway relativ to the carrigeway)

So, I'd rather see the concept of "doorzone" be an emergend property of
multiple other tags (buffer, position of cycle lane, ...) derived by
data users/renderes/routers.




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)


The problem still exists that this doesn't say if you're at risk of
being doored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doored (eg no buffer, but
also no parking lane), so a specific tag like
cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes/no/buffer addresses that better in my opinion.


Ideally, one of theese properties describing would need to use the
"parking:lane=*"- tag, to make is tag more wide spread.
My rational is, using the same tags, that one could conclude the conzept
of "doorzone" but also other parking conflicts, like crossing the cycle
lane to pull  in/out of an parking spot.

Am 03.05.2020 um 16:07 schrieb Andrew Harvey:

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 mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de>> wrote:

Meant to also add a discriptive tag, like

cycleway:right:parking_lane=right/left/both/no/yes


You would just use the existing parking:lane:parallel=left/right/both
tag no?


Yes and No.
Yes, as it give additional data to use.
No, not "just", because that would not give the position of the parking
lane relativ to the cycleway/cyclelane.

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 when lanes on both sides exist that have different 
properties.

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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 infrastructure, and it should be a hazard tag. In that context I
> would like to have also a way of tagging the danger of pedestrians crossing
> the cycle path/lane (e.g. cycle lane between roadside parking spaces and
> sidewalk ; another
> example  - both
> show passenger-door hazard)
> I would not put the hazard on the car parking spaces, it needs to go on
> the way the cyclist takes.
>

That example of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/343935838 is a good one
since it's not a bicycle lane, it's physically separated from the road and
mapped as shared path using a way separate from the road
(bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes). So in that case I
do agree that this door zone concept doesn't just apply to on road bicycle
lanes (cycleway=lane). Maybe cycleway:doorzone=yes/no=buffer is better than
cycleway:lane:doorzone then so it can apply to all types of bicycle ways.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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, like
>
> cycleway:right:parking_lane=right/left/both/no/yes
>

You would just use the existing parking:lane:parallel=left/right/both tag
no?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Hubert87]

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
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 schrieb Jan Michel:

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 and the bicycle lane.
The 'cycleway:buffer' tag is also used combined with :left and :right
to denote the buffer on left-hand and right-hand side of the cycleway.

Mappers in Berlin worked on a more detailed tagging of buffer and
protection of bicycle lanes, see (unfortunately in German only)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Verkehrswende/Radwege

I'd suggest to get in contact with them and discuss this. I imagine that
this information could fit very well into the cycleway:buffer tag - A
door zone is a non-existent buffer, so instead of 'no' one could use
'doorzone' as one of the non-numeric values.

Jan



On 03.05.20 08:37, 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 the other "in use" cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory,
since you can have exclusive/advisory lanes which are doorzone or not.

None of these have gone through a proposal process and both are
independently in use.



___
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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Volker Schmidt]

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 like to have also a way of tagging the danger of pedestrians crossing
the cycle path/lane (e.g. cycle lane between roadside parking spaces and
sidewalk ; another
example  - both
show passenger-door hazard)
I would not put the hazard on the car parking spaces, it needs to go on the
way the cyclist takes.

Il dom 3 mag 2020, 11:38 Robert Skedgell  ha scritto:

> 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 the other "in use" cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory,
> > since you can have exclusive/advisory lanes which are doorzone or not.
> >
> > None of these have gone through a proposal process and both are
> > independently in use.
> >
> > Given cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory have more use than doorzone, I
> > think we should put cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory through the formal
> > proposal process and then change how we map doorzones as
> > cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes so it can work together with
> exclusive/advisory.
> >
> > Any other opinions?
> >
> > Also on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:lane there is
> > cycleway=shared_lane + cycleway:lane=pictogram, should this not be
> > cycleway:shared_lane=pictogram?
> >
> > Given https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dshared_lane is
> > already defined as "Used to identify roads which contain a shared lane
> > marking, or sharrow, to indicate that the travel lane is shared by
> > bicycles and other vehicles." what does the =pictogram tag mean and how
> > is it different to cycleway=shared_lane?
>
> Once a consensus has been arrived at for tagging the cycle lane itself,
> would it also be worth suggesting in the wiki that the tag(s) be used in
> conjunction with parking:lane:*=parallel (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane )?
>
> As a separate issue, there are advisory cycle lanes combined with a
> single yellow line parking restriction, where there is a usable lane at
> the times when parking is prohibited, but effectively no cycle lane when
> parking is permitted (sometimes with a doorzone risk on the carriageway).
>
> --
> Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
>
> ___
> 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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[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 subjective. If there is parking directly next to the
bicycle lane and if a parked car opening a door would intersect with the
marked bicycle lane, then the bicycle lane is within a door zone. Is it the
term that's the issue or the concept? Judging by the wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doored it seems like a fairly widespread term
globally.


>
> 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)
>

The problem still exists that this doesn't say if you're at risk of being
doored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doored (eg no buffer, but also no
parking lane), so a specific tag like cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes/no/buffer
addresses that better in my opinion.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Hubert87]

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 schrieb Jan Michel:

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 and the bicycle lane.
The 'cycleway:buffer' tag is also used combined with :left and :right
to denote the buffer on left-hand and right-hand side of the cycleway.

Mappers in Berlin worked on a more detailed tagging of buffer and
protection of bicycle lanes, see (unfortunately in German only)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Verkehrswende/Radwege

I'd suggest to get in contact with them and discuss this. I imagine that
this information could fit very well into the cycleway:buffer tag - A
door zone is a non-existent buffer, so instead of 'no' one could use
'doorzone' as one of the non-numeric values.

Jan



On 03.05.20 08:37, 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 the other "in use" cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory,
since you can have exclusive/advisory lanes which are doorzone or not.

None of these have gone through a proposal process and both are
independently in use.



___
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] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Jan Michel]

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.


cycleway:lane:width
cycleway:lane:color


Why do you want to add the ':lane' part into the tags?
The keys without it are already in widespread use:
cycleway:width, cycleway:[left|right|both]:width
cycleway:colour, cycleway:[left|right|both]:colour
(also note the BE spelling 'colour')

Jan



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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Robert Skedgell]

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 the other "in use" cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory,
> since you can have exclusive/advisory lanes which are doorzone or not.
> 
> None of these have gone through a proposal process and both are
> independently in use.
> 
> Given cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory have more use than doorzone, I
> think we should put cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory through the formal
> proposal process and then change how we map doorzones as
> cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes so it can work together with exclusive/advisory.
> 
> Any other opinions?
> 
> Also on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:lane there is
> cycleway=shared_lane + cycleway:lane=pictogram, should this not be
> cycleway:shared_lane=pictogram?
> 
> Given https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dshared_lane is
> already defined as "Used to identify roads which contain a shared lane
> marking, or sharrow, to indicate that the travel lane is shared by
> bicycles and other vehicles." what does the =pictogram tag mean and how
> is it different to cycleway=shared_lane?

Once a consensus has been arrived at for tagging the cycle lane itself,
would it also be worth suggesting in the wiki that the tag(s) be used in
conjunction with parking:lane:*=parallel (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane )?

As a separate issue, there are advisory cycle lanes combined with a
single yellow line parking restriction, where there is a usable lane at
the times when parking is prohibited, but effectively no cycle lane when
parking is permitted (sometimes with a doorzone risk on the carriageway).

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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 described
> as the width of the buffer space between car lanes and the bicycle lane.
> The 'cycleway:buffer' tag is also used combined with :left and :right to
> denote the buffer on left-hand and right-hand side of the cycleway.
>
> Mappers in Berlin worked on a more detailed tagging of buffer and
> protection of bicycle lanes, see (unfortunately in German only)
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Verkehrswende/Radwege
>
> I'd suggest to get in contact with them and discuss this. I imagine that
> this information could fit very well into the cycleway:buffer tag - A
> door zone is a non-existent buffer, so instead of 'no' one could use
> 'doorzone' as one of the non-numeric values.


I didn't know about cycleway:buffer, it sounds good but I don't think alone
it is enough because:

- It doesn't indicate if cars can be parked next to the cyclelane (as a
doorzone only occurs when there are parked cars). I know we can marked a
parking lane with parking:lane:parallel but I think it's better to have an
explict way to say the cyclelane is in a doorzone.
- Can be hard to measure distances and hence hard to say at what distance
is considered in the door zone or not. In all the examples I know of there
is no buffer so cycleway:buffer:left=no (for left hand side driving) but a
half meter buffer might still be considered within the doorzone.

The current wiki page for cycleway:buffer implies cycleway:buffer is
between the cyclelane and traffic lane, it feels safer to never use
cycleway:buffer and instead always explicitly state cycleway:buffer:left
and cycleway:buffer:right, but it does get complicated with counterflow
cyclelanes.


On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 19:05, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think sub properties of a feature should go with this scheme
> mainfeature:subpropertie=values(yes/no/enumeration/absolute values/...)
> This help to respect orthogonality : values of a key should not conflict
>

Agreed


> So yes for :
> cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes/no/buffered
> buffered for the case there is a buffer marked between car park lane and
> cycle lane like this :
> https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/BikeLaneBuffer.jpg
> no means that the cyclelane is wide enough to not be doored (no buffer
> though).
>

That sounds good, except I think cycleway:lane:doorzone=no should mean that
no part of the cyclelane is within the doorzone or there is no car parking
and hence safe from doorzoning. cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes means that any
part of the cyclelane is prone to doorzoning and
cycleway:lane:doorzone=buffered means that there is a buffer to protect
from doorzoning, so while mostly you'll be safe from doorzoning you might
still want to exercise some caution.

I think this then can work in combination with cycleway:buffer:left and
cycleway:buffer:right.


>
> And I'd say yes also for :
> cycleway:lane:exclusive
> cycleway:lane:width
> cycleway:lane:color
> etc.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Florimond Berthoux]

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 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 the cycle lane as a buffer between parked cars and just ride
> outside of the cycle lane. There's been cases of mappers removing the
> cycleway=lane tag saying it's unsafe due to the doorzone, but that's wrong
> since there is a cycle lane there, so a dedicated tag would help
> alleviate this.
>
>
>> Maybe this could be tagged as a “hazard”, i.e. a property, rather than
>> forming a subtype of cyclelanes?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
>>
>
> That's an interesting idea. They key to note is that this is not usually a
> signposted hazard rather comes about due to the position of a parallel
> parking lane next to the cycle lane.
>
> cycleway:hazard=doorzone could apply. Though there could be other kinds of
> hazards which apply as well and it's unclear how that would work. I still
> would learn towards cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes as being my preferred option
> though, since you can tag =no as well.
>

I think sub properties of a feature should go with this scheme
mainfeature:subpropertie=values(yes/no/enumeration/absolute values/...)
This help to respect orthogonality : values of a key should not conflict

So yes for :
cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes/no/buffered
buffered for the case there is a buffer marked between car park lane and
cycle lane like this :
https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/BikeLaneBuffer.jpg
no means that the cyclelane is wide enough to not be doored (no buffer
though).

And I'd say yes also for :
cycleway:lane:exclusive
cycleway:lane:width
cycleway:lane:color
etc.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Jan Michel]

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 and the bicycle lane.
The 'cycleway:buffer' tag is also used combined with :left and :right to 
denote the buffer on left-hand and right-hand side of the cycleway.


Mappers in Berlin worked on a more detailed tagging of buffer and 
protection of bicycle lanes, see (unfortunately in German only)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Verkehrswende/Radwege

I'd suggest to get in contact with them and discuss this. I imagine that
this information could fit very well into the cycleway:buffer tag - A 
door zone is a non-existent buffer, so instead of 'no' one could use

'doorzone' as one of the non-numeric values.

Jan



On 03.05.20 08:37, 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 the other "in use" cycleway:lane=exclusive/advisory, 
since you can have exclusive/advisory lanes which are doorzone or not.


None of these have gone through a proposal process and both are 
independently in use.



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

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Andrew Harvey]

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 the cycle lane as a buffer between parked cars and just ride
outside of the cycle lane. There's been cases of mappers removing the
cycleway=lane tag saying it's unsafe due to the doorzone, but that's wrong
since there is a cycle lane there, so a dedicated tag would help
alleviate this.


> Maybe this could be tagged as a “hazard”, i.e. a property, rather than
> forming a subtype of cyclelanes?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
>

That's an interesting idea. They key to note is that this is not usually a
signposted hazard rather comes about due to the position of a parallel
parking lane next to the cycle lane.

cycleway:hazard=doorzone could apply. Though there could be other kinds of
hazards which apply as well and it's unclear how that would work. I still
would learn towards cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes as being my preferred option
though, since you can tag =no as well.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 intersect with the space of a cycle lane?

Maybe this could be tagged as a “hazard”, i.e. a property, rather than forming 
a subtype of cyclelanes?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard


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