Re: [Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?
Hi, another late reply :) You are right, the tagging is a bit unclear when reading through the examples on the Wiki page. Until now I was not aware of this additional usage of oneway:bicycle. For me this was just a way to clearly state that the road is, in one way or another, usable in both directions for cyclists. I am the last editor of the street you used as example and my rationale was: when a lane is on a certain side (cycleway:right/left) it is implicitly a oneway. And cycleway:left=opposite_track implies that the track is a oneway against the normal driving direction. I am in general not sure if it's a good idea to use oneway:bicycle to infer information regarding cycleway:*, since there could be cycleway:left and cycleway:right - should it apply to one of them? or both? A clearer and less ambigous way could be to use this (cycleway:*:oneway is slightly in use - see taginfo): cycleway:right=lane cycleway:right:oneway=yes (optional, a lane is by default unidirectional) cycleway:left=track cycleway:left:oneway=yes It's definitely complex to handle all this information correctly, my shot at this topic is www.radlkarte.at Best, Markus On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Pallai Roland pall...@magex.hu wrote: (I subscribed to the list temporary.) 2015-05-10 19:57 GMT+02:00 Pallai Roland pall...@magex.hu: Hi, 2015-05-03 21:10 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub markus.straub...@gmail.com: It's complicated, but I hope this helps a bit. Thanks, it's definitely helped me. I figured out a new marking for unpaved cyclepaths. Now I have ran into a problem with the following way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8080548 Based on the wiki page this tagging is doubtful to me, because it's very similar to M2d, so cycleway:right=lane + oneway:bicycle=no suggests that there is a cycle lane on the right side usable in both directions. I think it would be clearer without the oneway:bicycle=no tag (see M1). You can see the problem on my map: the lane is rendered with thick line what means usable in both directions. What do you think, is it a tagging issue or should I change my mind? P.S.: what's the URL of your cyclemap? I'm interested in your project! http://merretekerjek.hu The UI language is hungarian only at present. It's a detailed map and course creator (route planner) based on the Brouter engine. The map style based on osm.org but a lot of bicycle-specific markings are added, too much to list in this mail - check out an area where you have local knowledge and some will become clear. The map style is rather functional than a nice one. My purpose is to provide a detailed map fits for everyday use but help OSM editors to catch incorrect tagging as well. It might shows more than average joe needs. Currently the markings are too fuzzy at some places in Austria for my taste, because there is much higher bicycle facility density than I was used but I'm trying to adapt. The code isn't on github yet, but that's the way to go, just need some time to consolidate the project. Sorry for the late reply but I can pay attention to this project only in my spare time. On 2015-05-03 16:20, Pallai Roland wrote: I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png in Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways in the city? Are those designated for cyclists? In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists (traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:KRESZ-KPU.png) on an unpaved highway, or an unpaved highway suitable for cycling (but not designated for cyclists). If you found some with overpass that's just incorrect labeling. ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?
2015-05-16 17:41 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub markus.straub...@gmail.com:
another late reply :)
Just in time for me. :)
I am in general not sure if it's a good idea to use oneway:bicycle to
infer information regarding cycleway:*, since there could be
cycleway:left and cycleway:right - should it apply to one of them? or
both?
Yes, there is no consensus for some cases. One such case is when the
cycleway is running on both sides of the two-way street and one of them is
one-way. (If the street is one-way then either side is
opposite_{track,lane} so oneway:bicycle applies to the other side - doesn't
make a sense to apply oneway:bicycle to opposite_* cycleway.)
A clearer and less ambigous way could be to use this
(cycleway:*:oneway is slightly in use - see taginfo):
cycleway:right=lane
cycleway:right:oneway=yes (optional, a lane is by default unidirectional)
cycleway:left=track
cycleway:left:oneway=yes
I think it's a viable proposal to extend the current consensus for special
cases (and cycleway:{left,right}:oneway value should be yes or -1 to
describe the direction). I think I will support it in my map. I found an
interesting talk topic
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:cycleway#Two-way_track.2Flane_on_one_side_of_the_road
too.
However, the current consensus is not bad. It covers almost all cases out
there and always better to follow the current consensus/recommendation
while we can.
You are right, the tagging is a bit unclear when reading through the
examples on the Wiki page. Until now I was not aware of this
additional usage of oneway:bicycle. For me this was just a way to
clearly state that the road is, in one way or another, usable in both
directions for cyclists.
Do you need help to fix tagging in Wien? I could find all ambiguous cases
on overpass with a search for: cycleway:left={lane,track} +
cycleway:left=opposite_{lane,track} + oneway:bicycle=no. Will break your
map if we simply remove oneway:bicycle key if there is an opposite_*
cycleway?
It's definitely complex to handle all this information correctly, my
shot at this topic is www.radlkarte.at
Agreed, I also struggled a lot. I haven't seen before, nicer than mine!
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Pallai Roland pall...@magex.hu wrote:
(I subscribed to the list temporary.)
2015-05-10 19:57 GMT+02:00 Pallai Roland pall...@magex.hu:
Hi,
2015-05-03 21:10 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub markus.straub...@gmail.com:
It's complicated, but I hope this helps a bit.
Thanks, it's definitely helped me. I figured out a new marking for
unpaved
cyclepaths.
Now I have ran into a problem with the following way:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8080548
Based on the wiki page this tagging is doubtful to me, because it's very
similar to M2d, so cycleway:right=lane + oneway:bicycle=no suggests that
there is a cycle lane on the right side usable in both directions. I
think
it would be clearer without the oneway:bicycle=no tag (see M1).
You can see the problem on my map: the lane is rendered with thick line
what means usable in both directions.
What do you think, is it a tagging issue or should I change my mind?
P.S.: what's the URL of your cyclemap? I'm interested in your project!
http://merretekerjek.hu
The UI language is hungarian only at present. It's a detailed map and
course creator (route planner) based on the Brouter engine. The map
style
based on osm.org but a lot of bicycle-specific markings are added, too
much
to list in this mail - check out an area where you have local knowledge
and
some will become clear.
The map style is rather functional than a nice one. My purpose is to
provide a detailed map fits for everyday use but help OSM editors to
catch
incorrect tagging as well. It might shows more than average joe needs.
Currently the markings are too fuzzy at some places in Austria for my
taste, because there is much higher bicycle facility density than I
was
used but I'm trying to adapt.
The code isn't on github yet, but that's the way to go, just need some
time to consolidate the project.
Sorry for the late reply but I can pay attention to this project only in
my spare time.
On 2015-05-03 16:20, Pallai Roland wrote:
I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has
been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's
unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p
Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic
sign
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png
in
Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways
in
the city? Are those designated for cyclists?
In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's
never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists
(traffic sign
Re: [Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?
Hi, 2015-05-03 21:10 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub markus.straub...@gmail.com: It's complicated, but I hope this helps a bit. Thanks, it's definitely helped me. I figured out a new marking for unpaved cyclepaths. Now I have ran into a problem with the following way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8080548 Based on the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle this tagging is doubtful to me, because it's very similar to *M2d*, so cycleway:right=lane + oneway:bicycle=no suggests that there is a cycle lane on the right side usable in both directions. I think it would be clearer without the oneway:bicycle=no tag (see *M1*). You can see the problem on my map http://merretekerjek.hu/#zoom=17lat=48.20662lon=16.39034scope=varosban: the lane is rendered with thick line what means usable in both directions. What do you think, is it a tagging issue or should I change my mind? P.S.: what's the URL of your cyclemap? I'm interested in your project! http://merretekerjek.hu The UI language is hungarian only at present. It's a detailed map and course creator (route planner) based on the Brouter engine. The map style based on osm.org but a lot of bicycle-specific markings are added, too much to list in this mail - check out an area where you have local knowledge and some will become clear. The map style is rather functional than a nice one. My purpose is to provide a detailed map fits for everyday use but help OSM editors to catch incorrect tagging as well. It might shows more than average joe needs. Currently the markings are too fuzzy at some places in Austria for my taste, because there is much higher bicycle facility density than I was used but I'm trying to adapt. The code isn't on github yet, but that's the way to go, just need some time to consolidate the project. Sorry for the late reply but I can pay attention to this project only in my spare time. On 2015-05-03 16:20, Pallai Roland wrote: I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png in Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways in the city? Are those designated for cyclists? In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists (traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:KRESZ-KPU.png) on an unpaved highway, or an unpaved highway suitable for cycling (but not designated for cyclists). If you found some with overpass that's just incorrect labeling. ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?
(I subscribed to the list temporary.) 2015-05-10 19:57 GMT+02:00 Pallai Roland pall...@magex.hu: Hi, 2015-05-03 21:10 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub markus.straub...@gmail.com: It's complicated, but I hope this helps a bit. Thanks, it's definitely helped me. I figured out a new marking for unpaved cyclepaths. Now I have ran into a problem with the following way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8080548 Based on the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle this tagging is doubtful to me, because it's very similar to *M2d*, so cycleway:right=lane + oneway:bicycle=no suggests that there is a cycle lane on the right side usable in both directions. I think it would be clearer without the oneway:bicycle=no tag (see *M1*). You can see the problem on my map http://merretekerjek.hu/#zoom=17lat=48.20662lon=16.39034scope=varosban: the lane is rendered with thick line what means usable in both directions. What do you think, is it a tagging issue or should I change my mind? P.S.: what's the URL of your cyclemap? I'm interested in your project! http://merretekerjek.hu The UI language is hungarian only at present. It's a detailed map and course creator (route planner) based on the Brouter engine. The map style based on osm.org but a lot of bicycle-specific markings are added, too much to list in this mail - check out an area where you have local knowledge and some will become clear. The map style is rather functional than a nice one. My purpose is to provide a detailed map fits for everyday use but help OSM editors to catch incorrect tagging as well. It might shows more than average joe needs. Currently the markings are too fuzzy at some places in Austria for my taste, because there is much higher bicycle facility density than I was used but I'm trying to adapt. The code isn't on github yet, but that's the way to go, just need some time to consolidate the project. Sorry for the late reply but I can pay attention to this project only in my spare time. On 2015-05-03 16:20, Pallai Roland wrote: I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png in Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways in the city? Are those designated for cyclists? In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists (traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:KRESZ-KPU.png) on an unpaved highway, or an unpaved highway suitable for cycling (but not designated for cyclists). If you found some with overpass that's just incorrect labeling. ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
[Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?
Hi, I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png in Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways in the city? Are those designated for cyclists? In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists (traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:KRESZ-KPU.png) on an unpaved highway, or an unpaved highway suitable for cycling (but not designated for cyclists). If you found some with overpass that's just incorrect labeling. (Please CC me, I'm not on the mailing list. Thanks!) ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?
Hi Roland, yes, there are unpaved cycelways in Austria that have the official signage for cyclepaths (the one for 'pure' cycleways and also those for combined foot and cyclepaths: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:segregated). I know some examples of mostly touristic paths along rivers, and I recently even stumbled upon paths through a forest in Vorarlberg with this signage. Also check for surface=gravel,.., I am sure there is more. Regarding traffic rules: If there is a sign the rules apply: the most important ones being that it may be used by pedestrians and cyclists and that the accompanying road must not be used by pedestrians and cyclists (Radwegbenützungspflicht). I guess the latter does not apply in many cases because there just is no accompanying road as in this example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.29501/16.42677 In addition to that I am pretty sure that not every path with the cycleway signed is tagged as cycleway and vice versa. E.g. all cycleways on the Danube island in Vienna (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.25245/16.38541) are no real cycleways - but that's their actual function. It's complicated, but I hope this helps a bit. Best regards, Markus P.S.: what's the URL of your cyclemap? I'm interested in your project! On 2015-05-03 16:20, Pallai Roland wrote: Hi, I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png in Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways in the city? Are those designated for cyclists? In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists (traffic sign http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:KRESZ-KPU.png) on an unpaved highway, or an unpaved highway suitable for cycling (but not designated for cyclists). If you found some with overpass that's just incorrect labeling. (Please CC me, I'm not on the mailing list. Thanks!) ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
