Am 26.12.2014 um 09:39 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:15:29 +0100 > From: Pee Wee <piewi...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. > optional cycletracks) > Message-ID: > <CAPx7Go6oauavAJaKevHJfTzxO263v8eQ9imYe=bekpsg39r...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > First of all my compliments for seeking the opinions of the tagging mailing > list and your effort to improve OSM. > > Here are my 2 cents > > > > 1 Why does OSM need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle > ways? > > As a cyclist myself I can see some reasons why it could be useful for > routers and/or renderers. I think the proposal would improve if this was > explained a little further. (add some use cases for example) Youself have done huge efforts to establish bicycle=use_sidepath as a help for routers. It is a good tag. But OSM database is not only food for the router. The feature is worth to be rendered for two purposes: • Some cyclists prefer autonomous and intelligent routing (by their own brain) to automatic routing. • At least in France, Austria and Germany, obligatory cycletracks are subject of long and intensive political disputes. The traffic laws of these states provide both possibilities, but there is a great variation of local usage. For instance, Münster and Bremen have similar cycling infrastructure, but in Münster more than 75% of the cycletracks are obligatory, whereas in Bremen more than 75% are optional. > > > 2 Obligatory/optional for who? > > When I see these words I think of means of transportation rather than types > of “highways”. In NL a cycleway can be obligatory for : bicycles, mopeds, > mofas, pedestrians. So when I see cycleway=obligatory I wonder for whom? If there is a sidewalk beside the cycletrack, it is always obligatory for pedestrians. If there is a shared foot- and cycleway, it is always obligatory for pedestrians, too.
I prefer slim tagging, we should map a lot of features, but without describing each feature with a complicated combination of tags. This way, I'd prefer (and soon shall suggest) a special class highway=foot_cycleway beside footway, cycleway and path. If you research the lists of traffic signs of several European countries, yo see that shared foot- and cycleways are an international feature. Fiets-en-bromfiets-paden are a special Dutch feature, indeed. I won't object to a special class highway=moped_cycleway. Some features have to be dealt with as national standards. But rules that are very similar in several coutries ought to be described exactly AND slim by the same tags. > > > > 3 Legislation varies country to country and is not clear to all mappers. > > During the discussions on the bicycle=use_sidepath tag I noticed that the > word “compulsory/obligatory” has a different meaning in different > countries. Also many people (including mappers) don’t know exactly what the > difference is between optional and obligatory cycle ways. If we look at this British explanation http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/40/article15.html it is obvious that there are two regulations that may be strict or only advisory. On the question if car may use cycling spaces, i'd prefer the term "reserved", according to the French term "piste ou band cyclable conseillée et réservée" for optional cycling facilities. In the same way, optional cycletracks in Germany, despite the absence of signs, are reserved for cyclists. > > > > 4 Is the “traffic_sign=* “ an alternative? > > In many counties the difference between the 2 types derives from traffic > signs. In NL we have 3 types of traffic signs for cycle ways. 1 is optional > and the other 2 are obligatory (for ordinary bicycles). On this map in my > area > <http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm?map=cycleways&zoom=13&lat=52.15621&lon=5.46077&layers=B0000FFFFFFFFTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFF>you > can see the differences between the 3. (please wait for overpass query to > render) I do not generally object to the mapping of traffic signs, but on this feature I don't consider it a reasonable alternative: • The same traffic sign (such as the rectangular blue sign with a white biycyle for optional cycleways in France and Austria) always has to be noted with different codes from country to country. • A graphically very different sign may have the same meaning (Dutch "fietspad") I think, rendering should distinguish what is really different (A Czech "cyklopiktokoridor" is part of a shared lane and NO suggestriestrook. A German "schutzstreifen" is neither a "suggestiestrook" nor a shared lane), but cycling facilities of several countries that are almost identical ought to be rendered in with the same signature. And that affords international tagging. Now I prefer to cycle in the Xmas sun :) Ulrich > > > > Cheers > > PeeWee32 > > 2014-12-22 2:20 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm <ulamm.b...@t-online.de>: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and >> cycleway=optional. >> >> Now I hope for your comments. >> >> Ulrich
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
