Hi Richard I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road itself. I don't see the namespacing as an issue here.
The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the road by more than a curb, such as scrub or a tree row. In other words, so that bicyclists can not simply cross onto the street at any point without a dedicated crossing. Tobias Am 27. März 2019 11:31:18 MEZ schrieb Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net>: >Hi all, > >Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715 >https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254&lon=-0.0335&zoom=17 > >You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to >me, >it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be >right. > >In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight > >route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier >separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at >junctions >and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example >(apologies for Google link): > >https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp > >Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated >bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane) > >where the barrier gives out. > >This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry. >The >current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have >to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable >tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly >confuses the heck out of routers. > >How should we represent this? > >My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous >highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the >concrete >divider isn't there. > >Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and >just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as > >you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the >cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of >namespacing. > >Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on > >the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags > >and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there >because we have a junction which cars can turn across. > >Any preferences? > >cheers >Richard > >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
