I've posted a message in the newbies forum regarding my need. Those who
responded suggested me to send the discussion to the tagging group. So,
here I am.
My need is to give cyclists more info when preparing their rides on road
that are not cycleway (nor NCN, RCN, LCN). I saw the tag "rtc_rate" but not
find it very intuitive.
My first thought was to document a little more some road by adding a
shoulder tag (yes, no) and a traffic indicator tag (low, moderate, high).
Both responders confirmed that those tags does not exist. For my cycling
need, I would personnaly not go on a highway=secondary with no shoulder and
moderate to high traffic ... But, even with high traffic, I might use that
road if there is shoulder ... And, even without shoulder, I might go there
if the traffic indicator is low.
Excerpt from the answers received. First from Ramey:
I don't think there is any formalized way to indicate traffic other than
> looking at the class of road, (residential, tertiary, secondary, primary,
> trunk, motorway). I see many instances of a traffic key on tagwatch, with
> very complex values, but no idea what it's about, (e.g.
> traffic:hourly:23:Tu:winter:
> snow = 376/7:30)
>
> Again, if you have an idea about how to reasonably mark it up, (daily
> traffic volume, accident rate, etc) propose something for people to comment
> on. I, myself, would like to have some way to mark up which streets are
> better for cyclists. I know of a street near my home that is marked as a
> cycle route, but a 3 block stretch of it is so narrow that buses going
> through in opposite directions will wait for the other to go through before
> they proceed. So, it really does feel too narrow to be a good cycle route.
>
Second from Xan:
Daniel, I'm insterested in that. If you formalize it, please, alert me.
> I think it could be useful:
> - shoulder={yes,no}
> - shoulder:width=5 m
> - shoulder:side={left,right,
> both}
> - shoulder:line={continuous, dashed,....} (see [1])
> - shoulder:access = [all the access] (in some countries, the
> shoulder is for emergency purposes, depending on highway pedestrians and
> biclycles could use it, in some countries it could be used for buses..)
>
So there is probably a legitimite need there ...
Considering Xan's answer, I realize that , if we want to formalize
something, we have to look at it broader (not sure of the english word here
:-).
On my side, I was looking at something lot more simplier.
So, if I come back to my little cyclist need, I wonder if I could simply put
cycleway=shoulder. That would show that: there is a shoulder, it is large
enough to accomodate cycling, cycling is authorized on this road, shoulder
is not reserved for emergency, ... With about the same logic in mind, I
could say cycleway=no_shoulder, meaning that that road is often used by
cyclists and the traffic is low enough for a relatively safe sharing of the
road between car and bicycle even if there is pratically no shoulder (I have
an example of that near my home).
As I am suggesting adding values to the cycleway tag, I still believe that
the shoulder indicator would be usefull ...
Any thought on this?
Daniel Tremblay
Quebec City
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
