On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 22:59, Luke Stewart <suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G'day talk-au, > > Increasingly at major intersections, there has been an effort to improve > cyclist safety, which has led to some cycle lanes terminating before the > intersection and providing a ramp for cyclists to join a shared path and > use push button traffic lights to cross separated from the carriageway. As > such, there has been an increasing use of "All Bicycles" signage, which > from my research is legally enforceable. > > Some examples: > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/dQy7A06SHDfBKcN7xBKRFA (cycle lane > terminates before the intersection) > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2alrT9RBIzuY7JiFrnq6lQ (cycle lane > terminates due to narrow bridge, so cyclists must use the adjacent shared > path) > > My tagging mechanism for the connection between the roadway and the > cycleway/shared path (via the flush ramp) has been > > highway=cycleway > oneway=yes > surface=paved > > Possibly not the best solution, but the best that I have come up with so > far. > > As for the road after the ramp, I generally tag it with cycleway=no since > the infrastructure disappears. However in addition to the > aforementioned tagging scheme, I'm curious to whether the road beyond > should be tagged with bicycle=no up until the next intersection. For > instance, the first example would be tagged bicycle=no from the ramp until > Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not explicitly prohibited, the logical > result from requiring cyclists to leave the carriageway is that they aren't > allowed on the road, and I'm wondering how to replicate that properly in > OSM so that routers can understand. > Can you point to any of your research that says these are legally enforceable? I always thought these were advisory, or at least guidance for those using the cyclelane, if you're cycling in the traffic lane does that still apply? A motorway or tunnel which is signposted no bicycles is clearly bicycle=no but I think we should see further if this is really bicycle=no or just bicycle:advisory=no. I'm very keen to find out. +1 for cycleway=no. On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt? > The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will likely cover mulitple surface types, usually asphalt on the road, concrete for the gutter, and paving_stones or concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved I'd say is better when it's not clearly any single surface type. > I'm curious to whether the road beyond should be tagged with bicycle=no up > until the next intersection. For instance, the first example would be > tagged bicycle=no from the ramp until Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not > explicitly prohibited, the logical result from requiring cyclists to leave > the carriageway is that they aren't allowed on the road, and I'm wondering > how to replicate that properly in OSM so that routers can understand. > > Is there any case where cyclist would be allowed to use the road (for > example - cycling is some > specific direction requires using road as bikeway is not going there), but > generally > sidepath should be used whenever possible? > > In such case bicycle=use_sidepath would be better match. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath > The wiki says that's for when it's compulsory to use the shared path/cycleway but the road is not signposted as no bicycles. So that certainly may apply here. I guess it depends what the sign means.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
