Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: No. If - for example - you need to turn left on the next crossing and the adjacent cycleway is separated from the main road so that it is not possible to turn left from the cycleway, you are allowed to switch to the main road and drive on it in order to turn left. So bicycle=no is never correct in such situation. Un no the applicable segment and put in a turn relation? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
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) 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? 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. 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=cyclewayszoom=13lat=52.15621lon=5.46077layers=BTTTFyou can see the differences between the 3. (please wait for overpass query to render) 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 -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap http://www.openstreetmap.org. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: cycleway=track I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details. In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road, width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous. Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way - sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes). These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way (with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags. completely agree to everything here. Also adding tags for parallel ways to the main highway would require enormous splitting fragmentation on the main highway if you start to map the details, leading to a less maintainable map. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
Hallo, I didn’t want to bring it up on the discussion page yet, but I’m working a way to double represent road adjacent cycle ways/ cycle tracks as part of the road way and also on the separate way. It is far from being ready for representation, but it just fits the discussion right now. It has some ideas for distinguishing “near” cycle tracks (separated by a curb only) and “far” ones, too. My ideas are being discussed on the German mailing list and can be found on this wiki page: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/User:Hubert87/DoubleRepresentation As for having “cycleway=track” on the street-osm-way: There are cases where it is better to have it on the road itself. For example when rendering cycle ways in lower zoom levels. Happy Holidays Hubert From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2014 09:52 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks) 2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: cycleway=track I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details. In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road, width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous. Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way - sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes). These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way (with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags. completely agree to everything here. Also adding tags for parallel ways to the main highway would require enormous splitting fragmentation on the main highway if you start to map the details, leading to a less maintainable map. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
Here's the link to the proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Proposed_features/Obligatory_vs._optional_cycletrack 2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: No, no, no. In my opinion, there are a few nos missing here. So I'll add at least one more: no. Well, make that two: No. br, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com: No, no, no. In my opinion, there are a few nos missing here. So I'll add at least one more: no. Well, make that two: No. Let me add several nos: No, no, no, no, NO! Reasons have already been given. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
Hi, what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one of a very small number of countries that has this concept of if there is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road, or is this quite common? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
In Sweden it also generally not allowed to cycle on the road if a cycleway are present. There are some exeptions to this rule, but one cyclist actually got judged recently for violating this law. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one of a very small number of countries that has this concept of if there is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road, or is this quite common? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is verplicht fietspad i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you In Dutch law a snorfiets (light motorbike with pedals, max. 25 km/h) is equivalent to a bicycle, but a proper moped (max. 45 km/h) is a different class of vehicle. A snorfiets (called a mofa in OSM - is that a German term?) must follow the same rules as cycles. In some areas a moped is expected to use cycle tracks (the round blue sign shows both a cycle and a moped) but in other areas mopeds must follow the roads. There is also a non-mandatory cycle track which is a path on which it is permitted to cycle. Snorfietsen can use these paths as well of course, but only in in pedal mode (unless they are electric). Colin On 2014-12-22 10:54, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one of a very small number of countries that has this concept of if there is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road, or is this quite common? Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways is quite common. Right now it's done by distinguishing between bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=official and bicycle=designated/yes. In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway= optional since it is more of an access problem, than a type problem. (I also don't like cycleway=opposite) After all the only difference is where one may or must ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing. On Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de wrote: 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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
In Belgium the cyclist always have to use the cycleway, except - the path is in bad condition (glass, snow, holes, ...) - Children on small bikes - groups of cyclists. - for some special turns (see page 10 of http://webshop.bivv.be/frontend/files/products/pdf/2fea42ac8b1b22e59ef8d5ea77aaf906/fietsersendewegcode.pdf ) regards m On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is verplicht fietspad i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you In Dutch law a snorfiets (light motorbike with pedals, max. 25 km/h) is equivalent to a bicycle, but a proper moped (max. 45 km/h) is a different class of vehicle. A snorfiets (called a mofa in OSM - is that a German term?) must follow the same rules as cycles. In some areas a moped is expected to use cycle tracks (the round blue sign shows both a cycle and a moped) but in other areas mopeds must follow the roads. There is also a non-mandatory cycle track which is a path on which it is permitted to cycle. Snorfietsen can use these paths as well of course, but only in in pedal mode (unless they are electric). Colin On 2014-12-22 10:54, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one of a very small number of countries that has this concept of if there is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road, or is this quite common? Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
I would confirm this. Except Mofas (German abbreviation for Motor Fahrrad) don’t count as bicycle in germany. They may use cycle way in rural areas (outside of Cities, Towns, Villages) or if it is explicitly allowed (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Zusatzzeichen_1022-11.svg). Yours Hubert From: Colin Smale [mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl] Sent: Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 11:18 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks) In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is verplicht fietspad i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you In Dutch law a snorfiets (light motorbike with pedals, max. 25 km/h) is equivalent to a bicycle, but a proper moped (max. 45 km/h) is a different class of vehicle. A snorfiets (called a mofa in OSM - is that a German term?) must follow the same rules as cycles. In some areas a moped is expected to use cycle tracks (the round blue sign shows both a cycle and a moped) but in other areas mopeds must follow the roads. There is also a non-mandatory cycle track which is a path on which it is permitted to cycle. Snorfietsen can use these paths as well of course, but only in in pedal mode (unless they are electric). Colin On 2014-12-22 10:54, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one of a very small number of countries that has this concept of if there is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road, or is this quite common? Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
In France the situation exists. Two signs are designed for this (but not well understood by people and even sometimes misused by authorities): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Road_signs_in_France Sign B22a (round, blue) = compulsory / mandatory / obligatory Bicycles MUST use, bicycles not authorised on main road. Sign C113 (square, blue) = optional / proposed / reserved Bicycles may use cycleway or share road with motor vehicles Compulsory cycleway with sign B22a is even clearer when the main road shows: Sign B9b (round, red circle) = forbidden / not allowed / no access Bicycles not authorised on road (reserved for motor vehicles) or path (reserved for pedestrians). If the road and the cycleway are two differents OSM entities (2 ways): the situation of a compulsory cycleway (B9b+B22a) is currently not tagged on the cycleway but on the separate way for road with motor vehicles. Used tags (status unknown) may include bicycle=no or bicycle=use_sidepath. On 22 December 2014 at 10:54, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one of a very small number of countries that has this concept of if there is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road, or is this quite common? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional, cycletracks) (Mateusz Konieczny)
On 22/12/2014 9:09 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: 2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com: No, no, no. In my opinion, there are a few nos missing here. So I'll add at least one more: no. Well, make that two: No. Let me add several nos: No, no, no, no, NO! Reasons have already been given. Another no. A suitable tag already exists. In Australia generally you are allowed to bicycle on any road. There are some exceptions .. and they should be well marked with signs. As for tags .. these are already available as tags on the road where bicycling is not allowed. Use the tag bicycle=no on the road where the bicycle is not allowed. Why the need for another tag? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Mateusz Konieczny wrote: No, no, no. In my opinion, there are a few nos missing here. So I'll add at least one more: no. Well, make that two: No. ...there's no limit... Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-Obligatory-vs-optional-cycletracks-tp5827960p5827995.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
2014-12-22 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Mateusz Konieczny wrote: No, no, no. In my opinion, there are a few nos missing here. So I'll add at least one more: no. Well, make that two: No. ...there's no limit... Oh my 1992... I'm getting old ;-) I even got the CD... P.S: For everyone who only knows iTunesCo: CD is something like a physical download. No one uses them today anymore ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)
On 22/12/2014 11:00 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:53:53 +0100 From: Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optionalcycletracks) Message-ID: CAJKJX-QU=vpvyrgqgjb4xqzcqzmaugv-8ffbh9pyfz1_mtw...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In Belgium the cyclist always have to use the cycleway, except - the path is in bad condition (glass, snow, holes, ...) - Children on small bikes - groups of cyclists. - for some special turns (see page 10 of http://webshop.bivv.be/frontend/files/products/pdf/2fea42ac8b1b22e59ef8d5ea77aaf906/fietsersendewegcode.pdf ) regards m On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is verplicht fietspad i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you Colin -- I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist from certain roads! e.g. I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms west of me .. Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable. Or is it only obligatory for the adjacent road? Yes. In which case the road can be tagged bicycle=no ... if I don't want to use that 'obligatory cycleway' I could then find another road .. possibly further away, but I could avoid both that road and that cycleway. Thus the 'obligatory cycleway' applies to those bicyclists trying to use that one road. Same situation for the 'compulsory cycle track' if no other path exists then you have to use it, if there are other paths then mark the other paths as bicycle=no, as the situation demands. - Marc In some states of Australia I can bicycle on any footpath, in others I can if I'm under 12 years old or accompanying that child. I don't tag that, I'd not tag those complex exceptions in Belgium either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)
Note, there is also bicycle=use_sidepath created for this purpose. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath 2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 22/12/2014 11:00 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:53:53 +0100 From: Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optionalcycletracks) Message-ID: CAJKJX-QU=VPVyrGQgjb4xQZCQZmAugv-8FfbH9pYfz1_MTWV1Q@mail. gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In Belgium the cyclist always have to use the cycleway, except - the path is in bad condition (glass, snow, holes, ...) - Children on small bikes - groups of cyclists. - for some special turns (see page 10 of http://webshop.bivv.be/frontend/files/products/pdf/ 2fea42ac8b1b22e59ef8d5ea77aaf906/fietsersendewegcode.pdf ) regards m On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is verplicht fietspad i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you Colin -- I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist from certain roads! e.g. I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms west of me .. Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable. Or is it only obligatory for the adjacent road? Yes. In which case the road can be tagged bicycle=no ... if I don't want to use that 'obligatory cycleway' I could then find another road .. possibly further away, but I could avoid both that road and that cycleway. Thus the 'obligatory cycleway' applies to those bicyclists trying to use that one road. Same situation for the 'compulsory cycle track' if no other path exists then you have to use it, if there are other paths then mark the other paths as bicycle=no, as the situation demands. - Marc In some states of Australia I can bicycle on any footpath, in others I can if I'm under 12 years old or accompanying that child. I don't tag that, I'd not tag those complex exceptions in Belgium either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)
2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist from certain roads! e.g. I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms west of me .. Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable. Or is it only obligatory for the adjacent road? Yes. In which case the road can be tagged bicycle=no ... No. If - for example - you need to turn left on the next crossing and the adjacent cycleway is separated from the main road so that it is not possible to turn left from the cycleway, you are allowed to switch to the main road and drive on it in order to turn left. So bicycle=no is never correct in such situation. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)
Well, you don’t need it for routing purposes (if bicycle=use_sidepath is used in a certain way). But there are cases where you want do render “compulsory” and “optional” cycle ways in a different ways (e.g. dark blue and light blue). But in order to do that you need the information. Either as bicycle=obligatory or obligatory=yes/no, or … . Right now, I also have to tag traffic_sign=* and another information if that specific way is adjacent to a road. Yours Hubert From: Martin Vonwald [mailto:imagic@gmail.com] Sent: Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 15:17 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks) 2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist from certain roads! e.g. I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms west of me .. Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable. Or is it only obligatory for the adjacent road? Yes. In which case the road can be tagged bicycle=no ... No. If - for example - you need to turn left on the next crossing and the adjacent cycleway is separated from the main road so that it is not possible to turn left from the cycleway, you are allowed to switch to the main road and drive on it in order to turn left. So bicycle=no is never correct in such situation. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is cycleway=track. Now we have two solutions: 1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track 2. add a new key like bicycle_track=* My two cents fly Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert: The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand bicycle=designated/yes. In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing. OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich Lamm___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_mailto:ulamm.b...@t-online.de wrote: Hi all, I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. Now I hope for your comments. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
Am 22.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Ulrich Lamm: I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. I am still against this tag as I mentioned several times. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
cycleway=track I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details. In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road, width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous. Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way - sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes). These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way (with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags. At least this is my experience from tagging cycleway data in Kraków and using this data to render a map of bicycle related infrastructure. 2014-12-22 23:49 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is cycleway=track. Now we have two solutions: 1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track 2. add a new key like bicycle_track=* My two cents fly Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert: The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand bicycle=designated/yes. In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing. OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich Lamm___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_mailto:ulamm.b...@t-online.de wrote: Hi all, I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. Now I hope for your comments. ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
No, no, no. Cycleway key is already used for a different purpose! Cycleway=lane, cycleway=opposite, cycleway=shared_lane etc may be either obligatory or optional. This proposal would mean that one may record either type of cycleway or its legal implications but not both! Also, link to a detailed proposal is missing in your message. 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
