Hazard tag seems to be used when there is a sign, so I'm not confident to use it for doorzone.
There is two choices : 1. describe the layout of the street lanes + cyclelanes + : parking lane + sidewalk then add the widt of the cycle lane. Data consumer can deduce if the lane is dangerous or not + objective + complete without feature tagged twice - harder to compute doorzone state - harder to tag (a cyclist willing to tag doorzone has to tag parking lanes and width) example : cycleway=lane cycleway:width=1m parking:lane=parallel => doorzone (I could add more tags, for buffer, but I keep simple as possible.) 2. just tag doorzone feature (opposite arguments +/-) example : cycleway=lane cycleway:left:doorzone=yes Before writing this email I was not pro 1., but it's only 2 tags against 1, problem is that you must measure the lane and that is little difficult (our eyes are bad at that). At the end if the two way of tagging is documented for doorzone I'm ok with both. Le mer. 6 mai 2020 à 16:16, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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. >> >> -- Lukas >> *Gesendet:* 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 >> >> >> On 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Florimond Berthoux
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
