Ed Loach wrote: >> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with >> highway=cycleway. > > As per the discussion on the talk page of the proposal. > Alternatively highway=(road type), access=no, bicycle=yes. There are > arguments I believe that in exceptions where cars are also allowed, > having a different highway type would make clear that bicycles have > right of way over cars (if I read the discussion correctly). Even > then, highway=cycleway, width=whatever, motorcar=permissive (or > whatever the tags are) should suffice. Or is this about how it > renders?
This is about how it renders /and/ access. Bicycle boulevards imply that it's perfectly legal to drive a motorcar on it, but doing so is generally a bad idea because you're going to be forced to turn, get caught in a velojam (traffic jam consisting primarily of bicycles), or both. The restrictions and intersection devices simply favor the bicycle boulevard. Cyclemaps should render this on par to a tertiary or better that identifies it as such, maps geared towards motorists would show it as a minor access like an alley (since cyclists would consider a bicycle boulevard to be a more major route than an adjacent seven-lane boulevard lacking bicycle facilities, and a motorist would likely prefer the boulevard to a street where cars are forced off the way by only_right_turn every few blocks (motorists usually only being granted the rightmost lane on bicycle boulevards at intersections). In reality, it's more major than a residential, but not as major as a tertiary, in terms of who gets right of way at intersections.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
