On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Daniel Tremblay <tremb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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, ...
I was just thinking about motorways where cycling is restricted to the shoulder a few days ago, and came up with cycleway=shoulder as a possible solution. Yeah, I think cycleway=shoulder is a good solution, especially in cases where bicycles are not permitted on the roadway itself. The only hesitation I have is whether or not we might want to use something more generic, so we can indicate when shoulders useful for pedestrian access are available as well. > 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). I don't like that one. Traffic should be a separate tag. Along with speed limit and number of lanes, that should be enough info for the routers/renderers to make a reasonable decision (preferably with the input of the end user). The problem with the subjective cycleway=no_shoulder is simply that "relatively safe" differs from person to person, and even from trip to trip. > As I am suggesting adding values to the cycleway tag, I still believe that > the shoulder indicator would be usefull ... > > Any thought on this? Yeah, more tags for shoulders would be great. The only problem is they probably won't be heavily mapped. Whereas the cycleway=shoulder tag might get a bit more use. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
