Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem: cycleway:left=track cycleway:left:width=3 cycleway:left:surface=asphalt ...
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 12:01 Tobias Zwick, <o...@westnordost.de> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
