Sure, but I think it is best to do that in addition and not instead of cycleway=* tagging. For one it takes more effort, 2. the cases where the bike lane is in the middle of the road is limited. (not counting parking lanes). 3. cycleway=track would look funny using that scheme. Also adding more data about the lane is imo easier with a namespace based tagging scheme of cycleway:*=*.
On Sa, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: Can we move towards using the lanes tagging used for every other mode already? It's much more precise and can deal with situations like where the bike lane is not the extreme left/right lane. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Hubert <sg.fo...@gmx.de> wrote: Hallo, since a new main value for UK:advisary cyclelane, DE:Schutzstreifen, A:Mehrzweckstreifen, NL:fietsstrook met onderbroken streep, F:bande cyclable conseillée et réservée, CZ:cyklistický jízdní pruh didnt get approved, Im thinking of introducing a sub key for that. (Like many of you already suggested.) As a start Im thinking of cycleway=lane + lane=soft_lane for that purpose. However just a key for that one occasion doesnt seem logical, so a set of keys defining different types of on lane/on road surface cycle infrastructure should be developed, to keep the tagging consistent or to create a structured concept. In order to do that, Im thinking of introducing lane=strict_lane, soft_lane, suggestive_lane for lane like cycle ways where bicycles are encouraged to stay on one side of the road and shared_lane=sharrows, pictogram, busway for roads/lanes where bicyclists are not separated from other traffic. The in my opinion the main problems in that idea are the use of lane=suggestive_lane and shared_lane= busway. lane=suggestive_lane because it is in contrast of the current tagging as cycleway=shared_lane in the Netherlands. At least as far as I can remember. Im also not sure whether smurf lanes in the UK are tagged as cycleway=shared_lane. shared_lane= busway since this is currently tagged as cycleway=share_ busway. I think that in favor of structure, shared_lane= busway should be allowed. However, I havent made up my mind about that yet, or whether cycleway=share_ busway should be deprecated or just be discouraged. This would leave cycleway=track, lane, shared_lane, opposite_track, opposite_lane, opposite as the main values, lane=strict_lane, soft_lane, suggestive_lane and shared_lane=sharrows, pictogram, busway. Not part of the sub key discussion: As an addition one could say that a cycleway=track is also a lane like cycle infrastructure, which would make it a lane=track sub key. Also any cycleway=opposite(_*) could be represented by, for example, highway=* + oneway=yes + oneway:bicycle=no + cycleway=right/left/both cycleway:right/left =lane + cycleway:right/left:oneway= yes/-1 (assuming right hand traffic) What are your thoughts on this tagging scheme? Im sorry, if this is a bit confusing. Its late but I just couldnt wait writing. Best regard Hubert _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
