So far, the only ways that I'm aware of that use bicycle=designated are already neighborhood greenways.
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:53 -0700, PJ Houser wrote: > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 07:32:42 -0400 > From: Mike N <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] OpenTripPlanner Final Report > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 9/3/2011 11:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> 58: have you considered putting an RFC out on > cycleway=shared_lane to > >> get some discussion going around the tag? > > > > Every main lane where bikes are allowed is a shared lane. > Presumably the > > intent is the indicate where there's a shared lane > *marking*, i.e. a > > sharrow. > > There was a lengthy discussion on how to best mark sharrows, > and it > seemed to trend toward "bicycle=designated" which the OTP > router is using. > > Mike, > > Our version of OTP is only using bicycle=designated for > paths/footways/pedestrian/cycleway because of the lack of objective > criteria (such as signs or sharrows). It will eventually, but we felt > that cycleway=shared_lane is most appropriate for roads with sharrows. > In Portland, all "greenways" (what used to be called bike boulevards - > http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=50518&a=348902) will > be signed with sharrows. There are roads that are called bike routes by the > regional agency but don't have any markings, so we used our local tag > RLIS:bicycle=designated for this. As for bicycle=designated, we only use that > on non-motorized ways because of the controversy and occasional edit wars for > highway=path/cycleway/footway. The bicycle=designated/yes means that the way > can be switched between footway or path or pedestrian or whatever the editors > want, but the OTP router will still know that bicycles are intended/allowed > on the way. I'm not sure if any of the other OTP routers have gone live yet, > so I don't know where bicycle=designated is being used elsewhere. I'm > definitely interested in knowing because this is a discussion we've had a lot > - how to mark different levels of bicycle safety. > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 23:44:55 -0400 > From: Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] OpenTripPlanner Final Report > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 9/3/2011 11:23 PM, Josh Doe wrote: > > 58: have you considered putting an RFC out on > cycleway=shared_lane to > > get some discussion going around the tag? > > Every main lane where bikes are allowed is a shared lane. > Presumably the > intent is the indicate where there's a shared lane *marking*, > i.e. a > sharrow. > > Nathan, > > It appears that the proposed feature cycleway=shared_lane is defined > as "roads which contain a shared lane marking, or sharrow, to indicate > that the travel lane is shared by bicycles and other > vehicles" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shared_lane). > > Josh and Martjin, > > Thanks for the input! > > -- > PJ Houser > Trimet > GIS intern > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
