Oh Yes I agree, it's the same thing like that that (nearly) all railway=platforms have the risk that a passing-by train appears, and that's also a very general hazard implied by the situation. Or when there's a street with a very narrow sidewalk. It would be tagged by sidewalk:left:width=*, but to me all those things would "crash the system" if they all get a hazard=* value or any similar tagging.
Also, the width of the cycleway would play a role concerning dooring. If it's wide, cyclists can hold a distance. Maybe routers should combine this information (when available) together with a warning taken from the tagging.
--Lukas
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 16:14 Uhr
Von: "Peter Elderson" <pelder...@gmail.com>
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
Von: "Peter Elderson" <pelder...@gmail.com>
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
Seems to me that the hazard is a general hazard applying to all mixed traffic/parking situations. I would not map such a general hazard. Mapping events and risks, unless indicated by signage or markings, doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
In specific cases the hazard may deserve mapping, then it should be tied to specific OSM-objects, I think. If a parking "lane" is next to a cycle-lane, then you might want to see that when rendering or weigh in/warn when routing.
In that case I think maybe the best solution is to map the parking "lane" next to the cycling lane. The hazard then follows from the proximity.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 15:49 schreef <lukas-...@web.de>:
_______________________________________________Hmm okay, convinced. I only hope noone else comes with that topic later again then, but to me it's ok.-- LukasGesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 14:15 Uhr
Von: "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/taggingOn Wed, 6 May 2020 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
sent from a phone
> On 6. May 2020, at 13:20, lukas-...@web.de wrote:
>
> I agree with that, but then note that for "justice" we would need a foot:doorzone=yes, too, because when a sidewalk is in the parking car's doorzone (I think most sidewalks next to parking:lane=parallel are), there is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.
indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it. Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many hazards if you think it through...
;-)I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed as the concept only applies to bicycles.
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
