So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing: * the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the crossing physically begins and ends; * the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes
Correct? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 17 apr. 2019 om 05:50 schreef John Willis via Tagging < [email protected]>: > > highway=path > > > > This is all a result on an incomplete tagging set, and using highway=path > as a catch-all tag to avoid creation and documentation of missing tags. Any > and all of the footway=* values and sub-tags should also be available for > cycleway=* path=* and bridleway=* as well. > > Also, there is "pedestrian street” but no "cycling street” - another > missing highway=* value. these force unnecessary disparities in tagging > method. all those videos I see of people in Amsterdam cycling on wide > dedicated cycling roads with signals and stop lights and corssing and > whatnot seems like a road to me. > > but I am not here for that today, just cycleway=crossing. > > When mapping the cycling “roads” I encounter here in Japan, it is a > cycleway. it may have foot=yes, but it is a cycleway. it is built and > graded and signed and has curves and access ramps to be a cycleway. it is > not a footway or a path. it is a cycleway. It quacks like a cycleway, so it > is one. > > In many instances, cycleways are interrupted by large trunk roads, forcing > cyclists onto a footway=sidewalk and to use regular pedestrian > infrastructure at lights and signals. this is especially true where a > cycling road follows a river, and a trunk road crossing the river via a > bridge forces cyclists to use footways and a nearby intersection crosswalk > to get to the other side of the bridge to continue on the cycling road. in > rural areas with very long cycling roads, this is common. I know how to tag > all that. That is not for cycleway=crossing. > > But there are also many dedicated cycleways marked with their own > crossings when they have to cross a smaller road where a bypass tunnel is > not practical. > > > Here is a location where I have cycleway and footway bridges, unmarked > crossings, and marked crossings. There are some cuttings and tunnels too. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.28425/137.90828 > > > Similar to how we have bridges, tunnels, cuttings, and other features of > the way, “crossing” is not any different. the handwringing over having to > to use “path” is taking it way too far. > > We wouldn't be doing such mental gymnastics for a bridge - it too is a > property of the way, and tags the method of crossing another way (the > river). > > "It is a cycleway. it is a bridge.” is no different than “it is a > cycleway. "It is a road crossing” , beyond the intersecting node. > > Regardless if it is appropriate for use in your country, think we can be > flexible enough to use cycleway=crossing in situations in countries where > it is appropriate. > > Javbw > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
