On 24/03/2008 15:12, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Monday 24 March 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: >>> --++++-- cycleway >>> --++++-- road >>> --++++-- road >>> --++++-- cycleway >> I count 8 ways? >> Unless you are splitting all the ways at absolutely every >> intersection which is probably a little excessive.
In Cambridge (where we probably have more than most in the UK) I took the view that where a cycleway is physically separate from the road I would mark it as a separate highway, in the same way that separate carriageways of a dual carriageway road are separate highways. They sometimes diverge away from the road they are parallel to and generally do different things to the road. Consider what's going on here, for example (the E-W route is part of NCN51, the N-S one is local): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.20915&lon=0.18708&zoom=16&layers=B0FT (and look what happens at points further east, south and west). What I haven't done at all in Cambridge is marked cycle lanes, or shared use footways which are separate from the road only by a kerb. I do want to do this in due course, but we didn't have relations when I started Cambridge. In general the cycleways I've done are linked up properly at junctions. However a case I need to correct is where there is a T junction opposite, which is often like this: ------------ c/w ------+----- road | I should do the following, where true, or routing doesn't work properly (this is just like a road meeting a dual carriageway, where there may or may not be a gap in the central reservation). ------+----- c/w | ------+----- road | _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
