Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Ian Sergeant]

Generally yes.

There are a few different treatments.  The two main ones are where the
straight through cycle traffic remains to the left of a separated barrier.

Best example I can think of is at Ian Parade near concord.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PR6ShOVEl-hNO91xjsDwLQ

And there is also the fully separated off-ramp on-ramp style treatment.
There are also a few of those around Concord.  And also going through the
large roundabouts at North Nowra.  And other places.

As for cycle-lanes actually going through roundabouts.  Well, the classic
example would be on Darling Drive.  There used to be two where the
cycle-lanes went straight through, and there is one remaining.  It's a
terrible piece of infrastructure though.  There are some others around the
place.  If they don't cross exists they can be okay - but the ones crossing
exits are dangerous.

https://goo.gl/maps/r3LG7XajfvbEBRBQA

As much as we'd all like to have OSM to be our representation of how
cycle-friendly a road is, OSM in Sydney is already suffering a fair bit
from people entering their own interpretation of what is cycle
infrastructure.  So, I really think the best thing is to map it as it is.
But appreciate the motivation to try and let others know about the
continuity of a cycle route.

Thanks,
Ian.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31/12/19 16:42, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> IMO clearly no.
>
> A router may even prefer to route around roundabouts and prefer a route
> where cycling amenity is actually continuous.  Map it how it is, and the
> router can decide based on the preferences (weightings) of the rider.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, 8:05 am Sebastian S.,  wrote:
>
>> I agree that if there is nothing marked, however my question was rather
>> from a continuity point of view.
>> The roads into and out of the round about have cycle lanes. The cyclist
>> needs to merge with the road traffic to pass through.
>> Should the roundabout have cycle=designated or yes to ensure routing goes
>> through it?
>>
>>
>> On 30 December 2019 6:56:31 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If there's nothing marked on the road in the roundabout, then you can
>>> just omit the cycle lane tag from the roundabout.
>>>
>>> On Sun., 29 Dec. 2019, 2:21 pm Graeme Fitzpatrick, <
>>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

 Thanks

 Graeme


 On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales 
 wrote:

> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.
>

 As do I.


> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <
> mapp...@consebt.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the
>> cycle way and the roundabout.
>>
>
 Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to
 work through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?

>>>
> For safety I think you will find all bicycle lanes end before any
> roundabout and restart after the roundabout.. helps stop cars exiting over
> cyclists, well it is supposed to...
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For safety I think you will find all bicycle lanes end before any
> roundabout and restart after the roundabout.. helps stop cars exiting over
> cyclists, well it is supposed to...
>

The exception to that could be 3 road junction roundabouts in a T shape
where a bike lane could continue across the straight road.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Andrew Harvey]

The default for non-highways roads is bicycle=yes so even without any cycle
tags the router should still take you though it, but that's a routing
decision.

Omitting bicycle infrastructure tags from the roundabout helps let you know
that you need to merge with traffic to go though the roundabout.

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 08:04, Sebastian S.  wrote:

> I agree that if there is nothing marked, however my question was rather
> from a continuity point of view.
> The roads into and out of the round about have cycle lanes. The cyclist
> needs to merge with the road traffic to pass through.
> Should the roundabout have cycle=designated or yes to ensure routing goes
> through it?
>
>
> On 30 December 2019 6:56:31 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If there's nothing marked on the road in the roundabout, then you can
>> just omit the cycle lane tag from the roundabout.
>>
>> On Sun., 29 Dec. 2019, 2:21 pm Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.

>>>
>>> As do I.
>>>
>>>
 On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <
 mapp...@consebt.de> wrote:
>
>
> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the
> cycle way and the roundabout.
>

>>> Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to
>>> work through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?
>>>
>>>   Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Sebastian S.]

I agree that if there is nothing marked, however my question was rather from a 
continuity point of view.
The roads into and out of the round about have cycle lanes. The cyclist needs 
to merge with the road traffic to pass through.
Should the roundabout have cycle=designated or yes to ensure routing goes 
through it?


On 30 December 2019 6:56:31 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:
>If there's nothing marked on the road in the roundabout, then you can
>just
>omit the cycle lane tag from the roundabout.
>
>On Sun., 29 Dec. 2019, 2:21 pm Graeme Fitzpatrick,
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales 
>wrote:
>>
>>> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.
>>>
>>
>> As do I.
>>
>>
>>> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess
>
>>> wrote:


 I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the
>cycle
 way and the roundabout.

>>>
>> Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to
>work
>> through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?
>>
>>   Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Andrew Harvey]

If there's nothing marked on the road in the roundabout, then you can just
omit the cycle lane tag from the roundabout.

On Sun., 29 Dec. 2019, 2:21 pm Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales  wrote:
>
>> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.
>>
>
> As do I.
>
>
>> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the cycle
>>> way and the roundabout.
>>>
>>
> Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to work
> through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?
>
>   Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Adrian Hobbs]

I am an occasional editor who fixes the occasional mistake affecting cyclists.
As a cyclist I am one of many cyclists equally baffled by bike lanes that start 
and end randomly. Maybe we are expected to teleport.

One such type in my suburb is short sections (3metres) of lane marking with the 
bike logo about every 100m of road. Saving paint I guess. But how to mark it up?
Cheers
Adrian


⁣Get BlueMail for Android ​

On 29 Dec 2019, 14:21, at 14:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:
>Thanks
>
>Graeme
>
>
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales 
>wrote:
>
>> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.
>>
>
>As do I.
>
>
>> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess
>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the
>cycle
>>> way and the roundabout.
>>>
>>
>Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to
>work
>through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?
>
>  Thanks
>
>Graeme
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-au mailing list
>Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 16:52, David Wales  wrote:

> I prefer to use separate ways for separate foot paths.
>

As do I.


> On 28 December 2019 3:02:30 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the cycle
>> way and the roundabout.
>>
>
Looks OK to me, but I've also wondered how bike lanes are supposed to work
through roundabouts, when there's nothing marked on the road?

  Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Sebastian Spiess]

Hi Andrew,
thanks for all these hints. I probably should have read up on the tags a
bit better. A case of too late mapping.

I've followed your suggestions and added the tags up and downstream of
the roundabout with this changeset
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78947187

I do welcome comments. In particular regarding how to go about the cycle
way and the roundabout. And what about sidewalk? I'm inclined to map it
as a separate way.

Cheers,
Seb

On 28/12/19 6:37 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> 1. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes is says "Use
> the lanes=* key to tag how many traffic lanes there are on a highway
> ." and "Count excludes
> cycle lanes.". So in this case there are only 2 traffic lanes. So
> simply use:
>
> lanes=2
>
> 2. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway it says
> "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway" Since both sides
> have a cyclelane you can just use a single tag:
>
> cycleway=lane
>
> Using both cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:right=lane can be interpreted
> as the same thing, and some people would use cycleway:both=lane which
> also means the same thing. My preference is to keep things simple by
> using cycleway=lane since having 3 different ways of tagging the same
> thing just makes it harder for beginners to contribute because they'll
> be left confused on the difference, whereas if we're consistent with
> the simplest form, it's best.
>
> 3. Once you've used lanes=2 then access:lanes, bicycle:lanes,
> cycleway:lanes are no longer needed here.
>
> 4. lcn=yes only if this is part of a signposted cycle route (ie. if
> there are way marking signs showing this is a route)
>
> 5. Parking lane tagging looks good, but again once you've used lanes=2
> then you don't need parking:lanes=lane|lane.
>
> 6. I'd also use cycleway:lane=doorzone to indicate this cyclelane is
> in the door zone and so mostly I'd just ride outside the cyclelane in
> the traffic lane anyway... The tag isn't well documented yet but has
> have some
> use https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=doorzone
>
> 7. You could also say surface=asphalt, lit=yes, overtaking=no if you
> wanted to add more tags.
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 01:12, Sebastian Spiess  > wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm considering to add the following tags to Griffin Road (and others)
> bit since JOSM is not rendering as I expect it, I thought I ask if
> this
> combination makes even sense.
>
> Road example is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171171120 and
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1R1u3k4BQ6dsIscMwSfDpg
>
> The road is essentially parking lane, bike lane, 2 lane road, bike
> lane,
> parking lane. Tag wise this leads me to:
>
> access:lanes=|no|||no|
> bicycle:lanes=|designated|||designated|
> cycleway:lanes=|lane|||lane|
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:right=lane
> highway=secondary
> lanes=6
> lcn=yes
> maxspeed=50
> name=Griffin Road
> parking:condition:both=free
> parking:lane:both:parallel=on_street
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> parking:lanes=lane|lane
>
> what are your thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] parking and bike lane

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Sebastian,

1. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes is says "Use the lanes
=* key to tag how many traffic lanes there are on a highway
." and "Count excludes cycle
lanes.". So in this case there are only 2 traffic lanes. So simply use:

lanes=2

2. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway it says "
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway; Since both sides have a
cyclelane you can just use a single tag:

cycleway=lane

Using both cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:right=lane can be interpreted as
the same thing, and some people would use cycleway:both=lane which also
means the same thing. My preference is to keep things simple by using
cycleway=lane since having 3 different ways of tagging the same thing just
makes it harder for beginners to contribute because they'll be left
confused on the difference, whereas if we're consistent with the simplest
form, it's best.

3. Once you've used lanes=2 then access:lanes, bicycle:lanes,
cycleway:lanes are no longer needed here.

4. lcn=yes only if this is part of a signposted cycle route (ie. if there
are way marking signs showing this is a route)

5. Parking lane tagging looks good, but again once you've used lanes=2 then
you don't need parking:lanes=lane|lane.

6. I'd also use cycleway:lane=doorzone to indicate this cyclelane is in the
door zone and so mostly I'd just ride outside the cyclelane in the traffic
lane anyway... The tag isn't well documented yet but has have some use
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=doorzone

7. You could also say surface=asphalt, lit=yes, overtaking=no if you wanted
to add more tags.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 01:12, Sebastian Spiess  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm considering to add the following tags to Griffin Road (and others)
> bit since JOSM is not rendering as I expect it, I thought I ask if this
> combination makes even sense.
>
> Road example is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171171120 and
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1R1u3k4BQ6dsIscMwSfDpg
>
> The road is essentially parking lane, bike lane, 2 lane road, bike lane,
> parking lane. Tag wise this leads me to:
>
> access:lanes=|no|||no|
> bicycle:lanes=|designated|||designated|
> cycleway:lanes=|lane|||lane|
> cycleway:left=lane
> cycleway:right=lane
> highway=secondary
> lanes=6
> lcn=yes
> maxspeed=50
> name=Griffin Road
> parking:condition:both=free
> parking:lane:both:parallel=on_street
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> parking:lanes=lane|lane
>
> what are your thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au