[Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
Hi, in the German Forum [1] we had a discussion about cycle lanes (with a lot of off-topic talk). In Germany there are two different kind of bicycle lanes: 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane) 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?) So one solution that was pointed out in the thread is to tag the "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=shared_lane because of the description in the wiki. I then pointed out, that in the UK there is a similar situation, but no solution to it (see [2] Limitations). But I don't know what is meant with cycleway=shared_lane. So can someone specify what is meant by this tag? My solution would be to tag a "Radfahrstreifen" with cycleway=lane AND cycleway:bicycle=designated and a "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=lane AND cycleway:bicycle=designated. But this will break backward-compatibility. In the wiki there is also a tag for sharrows. But the description starts with "As shared_lane, ...". Does that mean that sharrows are tagged with cycleway=shared_lane, or is cycleway=sharrow the tag describing the markings on the road? Best regards, Balgofil [1] = http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19585 [2] = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
Balgofil writes: > 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a > sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane) > > 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a > "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?) I think the most important thing is to define the semantics of what is required. One problem (feature?) of OSM tagging is that there are a lot of implicit defaults, and these make it hard to use the data. I think we should be gradually defining the implicit tags (in the main tag wiki page, not in the database). By that I mean things like highway=footway implies motorcar=no. It sounds like Radfahrstreifen means that a cyclist may not ride on the road outside the lane. But with Schutzstreifen, a cyclist may ride on the road to the left of the dashed line. Or by mandatory do you mean that cars are prohibited from crossing the solid (white?) line into Radfahrstreifen but not prohibited from crossing the dashed line into a Schutzstreifen? In the US, cycle lanes on roads seem to usually have solid white lines, with dashed lines for turning places. I am unclear on whether there are restrictions on cyclists in various states (in MA, I don't believe so, beyond the standard rule that cyclists must ride as far to the right as can be done safely, which is usually less far than cars think :-). But I think cars are prohibited from driving in cycle lanes - I did see a Big Brother sign exhorting cars to stay out. In the US, my impression is that sharrows are just a reminder to everyone of the normal rules which always apply and have no real significance. In that respect, they are kind of like signs that say "Please drive nicely", or "Check twice; motorcyles are everywhere.". pgpfR_DyOYNLd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
I think shared_lane is used when the bikes are sharing the lane with cars,
perhaps with a cycle logo in the centre of the lane. Sharrows are when
there are cycle logos to one side, but no lane marking (not very common in
the UK; I've seen them in Brussels alongside parked cars, and they're more
often referred to in the US).
The main distinction in the UK is between solid white line ("mandatory"),
which means it's exclusive to bikes (cars "must" not enter), and a dashed
white line ("advisory") where cars should try not to enter. There is no
obligation on the cyclist to use or stay in those lanes, and drivers should
be prepared for a cyclist pulling out to overtake a slower cyclist (though
whether that is culturally accepted in practice varies by location).
For clarity, I'd probably go for cycleway:designation=Radfahrstreifen or
cycleway:designation=Schutzstreifen, so someone who knows the rules is
absolutely clear what you mean. You can try adding appropriate access tags
for the cycleway and maybe the roadway as a whole
(bicycle=no|discouraged+cycleway:bicycle=yes|designated), but the odds of
this being done clearly and widely enough to be useful are dubious. As you
say the bicycle=no might lead to some unintended effects, so maybe it would
be better as roadway:bicycle=no|discouraged.
Richard
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Balgofil wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in the German Forum [1] we had a discussion about cycle lanes (with a
> lot of off-topic talk). In Germany there are two different kind of
> bicycle lanes:
>
> 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a
> sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane)
>
> 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a
> "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?)
>
> So one solution that was pointed out in the thread is to tag the
> "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=shared_lane because of the description
> in the wiki. I then pointed out, that in the UK there is a similar
> situation, but no solution to it (see [2] Limitations). But I don't
> know what is meant with cycleway=shared_lane. So can someone specify
> what is meant by this tag?
>
> My solution would be to tag a "Radfahrstreifen" with cycleway=lane AND
> cycleway:bicycle=designated and a "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=lane
> AND cycleway:bicycle=designated. But this will break
> backward-compatibility.
>
> In the wiki there is also a tag for sharrows. But the description
> starts with "As shared_lane, ...". Does that mean that sharrows are
> tagged with cycleway=shared_lane, or is cycleway=sharrow the tag
> describing the markings on the road?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Balgofil
>
>
>
> [1] = http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19585
> [2] = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM
There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether to represent Adopt-a-highway features. See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html as the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the tagging board for further discussion. --ceyockey ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM (this time in plain text)
There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether to represent Adopt-a-highway features. See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html as the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the tagging board for further discussion. --ceyockey ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM (this time in plain text)
Am 12.01.2013 17:21, ceyockey wrote: > There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether > to represent Adopt-a-highway features. > See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html > as the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the > tagging board > for further discussion. > Hi, I'm not lucky with the amenity-Tag. Don't think this feature is a amenity. Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM (this time in plain text)
On 1/12/13 11:21 AM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote: There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether to represent Adopt-a-highway features. See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html as the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the tagging board for further discussion. --ceyockey there is already a convention for tagging the location of speed limit signs, i suggest you take a look at that: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits#Speed_limit_signs richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM (this time in plain text)
I should have also pointed at the revision to the original suggestion which I wrote after comments were provided at talk-us --> see http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010187.html . This doesn't use amenity. --ceyockey -Original Message- >From: Chris66 >Sent: Jan 12, 2013 11:34 AM >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM (this time in >plain text) > >Am 12.01.2013 17:21, ceyockey wrote: > >> There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether >> to represent Adopt-a-highway features. >> See >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html >> as the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the >> tagging board >> for further discussion. >> > >Hi, >I'm not lucky with the amenity-Tag. Don't think this feature is a amenity. > >Chris > > > > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM -- using traffic_sign
I take it that you are suggesting the use of key:traffic_sign as the referent for the sign containing the adopt-a-highway information. Though not said in the Wiki page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign ), I generally think of a traffic sign as something which is meant to influence your driving behavior in some way, such as speed limit or city limit (the latter indicating that the laws governing your driving might just have changed). Maybe I'm over interpreting the key. --ceyockey -Original Message- >From: Richard Welty >Sent: Jan 12, 2013 11:46 AM >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM (this time in >plain text) > >On 1/12/13 11:21 AM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote: >> There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether >> to represent Adopt-a-highway features. See >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html as >> the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the tagging >> board for further discussion. --ceyockey >> >there is already a convention for tagging the location of speed limit >signs, i suggest you take a look at that: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits#Speed_limit_signs > >richard > > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adopt-a-highway representation in OSM -- using traffic_sign
On 1/12/13 2:13 PM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote: I take it that you are suggesting the use of key:traffic_sign as the referent for the sign containing the adopt-a-highway information. Though not said in the Wiki page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign ), I generally think of a traffic sign as something which is meant to influence your driving behavior in some way, such as speed limit or city limit (the latter indicating that the laws governing your driving might just have changed). Maybe I'm over interpreting the key. --ceyockey not necessarily. but it does set a pattern for how signs facing traffic are done. perhaps information_sign= and use name= instead of organization= mind you i still don't understand the use case for the data and and think this is likely to be a bunch of information that never gets maintained properly. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Multiple Purposes for Buildings - forum for discussion of indoor mapping
Consider posting at or joining http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=67 , which is dedicated to 'indoor mapping' . I've noted this discussion thread at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Indoor_Mapping . --ceyockey ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
A sharrow indicates a shared_lane (one of two markings in use in the US; the other being a bicycle symbol by itself with no chevrons, usually accompanied by the "share the road" advisory signs; this may be Oklahoma specific usage as Oklahoma doesn't use sharrows, however). On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Balgofil wrote: > Hi, > > in the German Forum [1] we had a discussion about cycle lanes (with a > lot of off-topic talk). In Germany there are two different kind of > bicycle lanes: > > 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a > sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane) > > 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a > "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?) > > So one solution that was pointed out in the thread is to tag the > "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=shared_lane because of the description > in the wiki. I then pointed out, that in the UK there is a similar > situation, but no solution to it (see [2] Limitations). But I don't > know what is meant with cycleway=shared_lane. So can someone specify > what is meant by this tag? > > My solution would be to tag a "Radfahrstreifen" with cycleway=lane AND > cycleway:bicycle=designated and a "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=lane > AND cycleway:bicycle=designated. But this will break > backward-compatibility. > > In the wiki there is also a tag for sharrows. But the description > starts with "As shared_lane, ...". Does that mean that sharrows are > tagged with cycleway=shared_lane, or is cycleway=sharrow the tag > describing the markings on the road? > > > Best regards, > > Balgofil > > > > [1] = http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19585 > [2] = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
Sharrow markings are typically (and properly) only found on bicycle routes that do not have dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle boulevards. cycleway=shared_lane in the US, save for locales that Did Not Get the Memo™, should also have bicycle=designated and be a member of the appropriate type=route, route=bicycle relation. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Balgofil writes: > > > 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a > > sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane) > > > > 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a > > "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?) > > I think the most important thing is to define the semantics of what is > required. One problem (feature?) of OSM tagging is that there are a lot > of implicit defaults, and these make it hard to use the data. I think > we should be gradually defining the implicit tags (in the main tag wiki > page, not in the database). By that I mean things like highway=footway > implies motorcar=no. > > It sounds like Radfahrstreifen means that a cyclist may not ride on the > road outside the lane. But with Schutzstreifen, a cyclist may ride on > the road to the left of the dashed line. Or by mandatory do you mean > that cars are prohibited from crossing the solid (white?) line into > Radfahrstreifen but not prohibited from crossing the dashed line into a > Schutzstreifen? > > In the US, cycle lanes on roads seem to usually have solid white lines, > with dashed lines for turning places. I am unclear on whether there are > restrictions on cyclists in various states (in MA, I don't believe so, > beyond the standard rule that cyclists must ride as far to the right as > can be done safely, which is usually less far than cars think :-). But > I think cars are prohibited from driving in cycle lanes - I did see a > Big Brother sign exhorting cars to stay out. > > In the US, my impression is that sharrows are just a reminder to > everyone of the normal rules which always apply and have no real > significance. In that respect, they are kind of like signs that say > "Please drive nicely", or "Check twice; motorcyles are everywhere.". > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
This dashed/solid distinction applies to the US as well (though some
states, such as Oregon, make lanes that have restrictions such as mandatory
turns or specific traffic types, separated by double-width lines as well).
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think shared_lane is used when the bikes are sharing the lane with cars,
> perhaps with a cycle logo in the centre of the lane. Sharrows are when
> there are cycle logos to one side, but no lane marking (not very common in
> the UK; I've seen them in Brussels alongside parked cars, and they're more
> often referred to in the US).
>
> The main distinction in the UK is between solid white line ("mandatory"),
> which means it's exclusive to bikes (cars "must" not enter), and a dashed
> white line ("advisory") where cars should try not to enter. There is no
> obligation on the cyclist to use or stay in those lanes, and drivers should
> be prepared for a cyclist pulling out to overtake a slower cyclist (though
> whether that is culturally accepted in practice varies by location).
>
> For clarity, I'd probably go for cycleway:designation=Radfahrstreifen or
> cycleway:designation=Schutzstreifen, so someone who knows the rules is
> absolutely clear what you mean. You can try adding appropriate access tags
> for the cycleway and maybe the roadway as a whole
> (bicycle=no|discouraged+cycleway:bicycle=yes|designated), but the odds of
> this being done clearly and widely enough to be useful are dubious. As you
> say the bicycle=no might lead to some unintended effects, so maybe it would
> be better as roadway:bicycle=no|discouraged.
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Balgofil wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in the German Forum [1] we had a discussion about cycle lanes (with a
>> lot of off-topic talk). In Germany there are two different kind of
>> bicycle lanes:
>>
>> 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a
>> sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane)
>>
>> 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a
>> "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?)
>>
>> So one solution that was pointed out in the thread is to tag the
>> "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=shared_lane because of the description
>> in the wiki. I then pointed out, that in the UK there is a similar
>> situation, but no solution to it (see [2] Limitations). But I don't
>> know what is meant with cycleway=shared_lane. So can someone specify
>> what is meant by this tag?
>>
>> My solution would be to tag a "Radfahrstreifen" with cycleway=lane AND
>> cycleway:bicycle=designated and a "Schutzstreifen" with cycleway=lane
>> AND cycleway:bicycle=designated. But this will break
>> backward-compatibility.
>>
>> In the wiki there is also a tag for sharrows. But the description
>> starts with "As shared_lane, ...". Does that mean that sharrows are
>> tagged with cycleway=shared_lane, or is cycleway=sharrow the tag
>> describing the markings on the road?
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Balgofil
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] = http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19585
>> [2] = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some
other indication that it's referring to the general engineering and
architecture of the bridge rather than the vague "type" which might get
confused with "foot, cycleway, motorway" etc; and _ which isn't a
good separator for what is effectively a subkey.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Michael Patrick wrote:
> ( My apologies to the list for inadvertently regurgitating an undigested
> reply back onto the list )
>
> > I think I like the "bridge:movable" suggestion made there. (So movable
>> bridges would be tagged, e.g., "bridge=movable; bridge:movable= bascule"
>> and so forth.)
>>
>
> So would there be a reflective tag "bridge:fixed", etc. (I'll go look)
>
> That also makes it a little easier to parse for a (hypothetical)
>> downstream piece of routing software; it doesn't care to learn about
>> all the different varieties of movable bridge, it just needs to be
>> able to spot bridges that could open and leave you stuck in a traffic
>> jam.
>>
>
> Which is what prompted my question about the individual span types, the
> various bridges have names like 'The Eastern High Rise', etc. that radio
> traffic announcers and EMS uses, and there are exit opportunities for some.
>
>
>> > This is my approximation for the eastbound lanes
>> of I-90, moving from west to east. Segment 1 (over roads):
>> "bridge=yes; bridge_type=beam". Segment 2: "bridge=yes;
>> bridge_type=truss". ("bridge=viaduct" might be OK for this, too;
>> that's sort of a matter of taste.) Segment 3: "bridge=yes;
>> bridge_type=arch". Segment 4: "bridge=yes; bridge_type=floating".
>> Segment 5: "bridge=yes; bridge_type=arch". Segment 6: "bridge=yes;
>> bridge_type=beam".
>>
>
> Thank you for your time constructing the example.
>
>
>> > And this kind of "span-by-span" breakdown does have some potential
>> when it comes to navigation. In bridges crossing navigable estuaries, it's
>> not uncommon to have a long series of fixed spans with a movable span
>> somewhere in the middle over the navigation channel. In that case, it's
>> certainly useful to distinguish between the movable and the fixed spans, as
>> it defines the location of the channel.
>>
>
> I've noticed around here maintenance, reconstruction
> like seismic refitting, etc seem to be defined by the span type. So I think
> it would be useful also.
>
> Michael Patrick
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
Paul Johnson wrote: > Sharrow markings are typically (and properly) only found on bicycle > routes > that do not have dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle boulevards. > cycleway=shared_lane in the US, save for locales that Did Not Get the > Memo™, should also have bicycle=designated and be a member of the > appropriate type=route, route=bicycle relation. > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > > Balgofil writes: > > > > > 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by > a > > > sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane) > > > > > > 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as > a > > > "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign > (cycleway=?) > > > > I think the most important thing is to define the semantics of what > is > > required. One problem (feature?) of OSM tagging is that there are a > lot > > of implicit defaults, and these make it hard to use the data. I > think > > we should be gradually defining the implicit tags (in the main tag > wiki > > page, not in the database). By that I mean things like > highway=footway > > implies motorcar=no. > > > > It sounds like Radfahrstreifen means that a cyclist may not ride on > the > > road outside the lane. But with Schutzstreifen, a cyclist may ride > on > > the road to the left of the dashed line. Or by mandatory do you > mean > > that cars are prohibited from crossing the solid (white?) line into > > Radfahrstreifen but not prohibited from crossing the dashed line > into a > > Schutzstreifen? > > > > In the US, cycle lanes on roads seem to usually have solid white > lines, > > with dashed lines for turning places. I am unclear on whether there > are > > restrictions on cyclists in various states (in MA, I don't believe > so, > > beyond the standard rule that cyclists must ride as far to the right > as > > can be done safely, which is usually less far than cars think :-). > But > > I think cars are prohibited from driving in cycle lanes - I did see > a > > Big Brother sign exhorting cars to stay out. > > > > In the US, my impression is that sharrows are just a reminder to > > everyone of the normal rules which always apply and have no real > > significance. In that respect, they are kind of like signs that say > > "Please drive nicely", or "Check twice; motorcyles are everywhere.". > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging The typical pattern here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA is for designated bicycle routes to have dedicated bicycle lanes mid-block, and sharrows at intersections, rather than have motorized traffic turn across a bicycle lane that is outside of the turn lane. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > A sharrow indicates a shared_lane (one of two markings in use in the US; > the other being a bicycle symbol by itself with no chevrons, usually > accompanied by the "share the road" advisory signs; this may be Oklahoma > specific usage as Oklahoma doesn't use sharrows, however). Seattle uses sharrows, the bicycle with chevrons and also has a share the road signage program. I don't recall seeing both the sharrow and sign. Initially the signage was to be used at narrow points in the road where there were no alternatives routes for bicycles. Note: from a person who rarely rides a bike and when I do, it's on a trail designated for bikes and pedestrians -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
Your traffic engineers really need to tell Oregon how it's done. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> Sharrow markings are typically (and properly) only found on bicycle >> routes that do not have dedicated bicycle lanes, and bicycle boulevards. >> cycleway=shared_lane in the US, save for locales that Did Not Get the >> Memo™, should also have bicycle=designated and be a member of the >> appropriate type=route, route=bicycle relation. >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >>> >>> Balgofil writes: >>> >>> > 1. "Radfahrstreifen": cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a >>> > sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane) >>> > >>> > 2. "Schutzstreifen" cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a >>> > "Radfahrstreifen" and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?) >>> >>> I think the most important thing is to define the semantics of what is >>> required. One problem (feature?) of OSM tagging is that there are a lot >>> of implicit defaults, and these make it hard to use the data. I think >>> we should be gradually defining the implicit tags (in the main tag wiki >>> page, not in the database). By that I mean things like highway=footway >>> implies motorcar=no. >>> >>> It sounds like Radfahrstreifen means that a cyclist may not ride on the >>> road outside the lane. But with Schutzstreifen, a cyclist may ride on >>> the road to the left of the dashed line. Or by mandatory do you mean >>> that cars are prohibited from crossing the solid (white?) line into >>> Radfahrstreifen but not prohibited from crossing the dashed line into a >>> Schutzstreifen? >>> >>> In the US, cycle lanes on roads seem to usually have solid white lines, >>> with dashed lines for turning places. I am unclear on whether there are >>> restrictions on cyclists in various states (in MA, I don't believe so, >>> beyond the standard rule that cyclists must ride as far to the right as >>> can be done safely, which is usually less far than cars think :-). But >>> I think cars are prohibited from driving in cycle lanes - I did see a >>> Big Brother sign exhorting cars to stay out. >>> >>> In the US, my impression is that sharrows are just a reminder to >>> everyone of the normal rules which always apply and have no real >>> significance. In that respect, they are kind of like signs that say >>> "Please drive nicely", or "Check twice; motorcyles are everywhere.". >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >>> >> -- >> >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > The typical pattern here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA is for designated > bicycle routes to have dedicated bicycle lanes mid-block, and sharrows at > intersections, rather than have motorized traffic turn across a bicycle > lane that is outside of the turn lane. > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not > to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page
I really need to get the River Parks Authority here in touch with Portland and Seattle on how it's done... MUPs suck for everyone involved, but a pedestrian-free cycleway with a vehicle-free sidewalk works wonders. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> A sharrow indicates a shared_lane (one of two markings in use in the US; >> the other being a bicycle symbol by itself with no chevrons, usually >> accompanied by the "share the road" advisory signs; this may be Oklahoma >> specific usage as Oklahoma doesn't use sharrows, however). > > Seattle uses sharrows, the bicycle with chevrons and also has a share the > road signage program. I don't recall seeing both the sharrow and sign. > Initially the signage was to be used at narrow points in the road where > there were no alternatives routes for bicycles. > > Note: from a person who rarely rides a bike and when I do, it's on a trail > designated for bikes and pedestrians > > -- > Clifford > > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
