Re: [talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM

[Luke Stewart]

*I'd agree - that's what I thought was going on? I understand
shared_lane as when they paint a bike in the leftmost lane of a road, or in
the middle of an alley/small residential road.With that said, TfNSW's
definition - "On road facility type shared with moving vehicles" - is a lot
vaguer, so I wonder if they're tagging some unmarked routes..*

I also agree with this; without any bicycle stencil, that should be classed
as no bicycle specific facilities. Considering they already have lane and
segregated lanes in separate classes, a stencil is about the only other
class I could think of that meets the TfNSW definition.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM

[Ash Logan]

Hey Andrew!

On 22/02/2020 10.07, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Hi Ash, it's great to see some interest in improving bicycle 
infrastructure in OSM!


On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 15:46, Ash Logan > wrote:

...

For me it's more that we already have a lot of cycle infrastructure 
mapped which is constantly being updated and improved so if anything 
TfNSW data should be treated as a guide only and not the only source of 
information especially for indications of missing or removed cycle 
infrastructure.Understandable! So far I've mostly been using it to "point out" infra on 
aerial, and deal with some of the boilerplate tags. I don't think it 
should be trusted over recent imagery or a survey that says something 
*doesn't* exist.


cycleway:width on a cycleway=shared_lane doesn't make a lot of sense to 
me, is that the road width? in which case it's just width=, or is it the 
lane width?
I took a quick look through the data and a lot of the lanes and on-road 
bits appeared to have the lane width rather than the road width, which I 
guess makes sense because you're only interested in the lane as a 
cyclist. A better tag would probably be width:lanes, but that needs 
information I don't have in this dataset (other lanes, lane ordering, 
etc.) and makes cycleway=shoulder a bit confusing.
Mappers using this should definitely check the width tags anyway, a lot 
of them don't seem right to me.


After a quick scan it looks like a cycle route is marked as 
cycleway=shared_lane, though generally I'd only add cycleway=shared_lane 
if there is some kind of bicycle marking on the ground, is that reasonable?
I'd agree - that's what I thought was going on? I understand shared_lane 
as when they paint a bike in the leftmost lane of a road, or in the 
middle of an alley/small residential road.
With that said, TfNSW's definition - "On road facility type shared with 
moving vehicles" - is a lot vaguer, so I wonder if they're tagging some 
unmarked routes..


-Ash
--
https://heyquark.com

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au