Hallo Volker. I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this is still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands and Poland. And I'm also a fan. :)
The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many different tags like oneway, width, smoothness, surface, lit, incline maybe also traffic_sign and bicycle. You often end up this segments of only a few meters. Plus you would have about 18 tags with cycleway:right/left(:*)=* on the main road. And that doesn't even include other reasons for splitting up a way. Yours Hubert. On 27. November 2015 12:30 Volker Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] wrote: > Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I want > to produce a map that can be used to improve the cycling infrastructure in > Padova and also to collect data that improve routing for cyclists. When you > try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies. > You mention the discrepancy between the law and the reality on the roads, but > when you are involved in an accident, it's the law that counts. That's why I want to insert formally correct data. I cannot map the fact that most cyclists even don't know that, by law they have to use certsin types of cycleways (and not others). > Practical example: on one of the main bicycle traffic thoroughfares of Padova > (which happens to be the street with the second highest number of serious > accidents in town) they provide a (mandatory) cycleway which in many places > is only one meter wide and also often obstructed by trash collection > containers and fallen leaves. The map should contain that data (the trash > container and the leaves go into a separate crowdmap). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
