On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote:
I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does
seem garbled at points....
Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly intended
as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata
tags present, but things like surface should have been better written.
I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope others
can enhance the section too.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing
Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than
the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?
Sorry, yes, fixed.
Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is
considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some
places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases
where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of
muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once
the value is known.
My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed
by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that
isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This
demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather
than assumed/unknown/ambiguous).
Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
