Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some > motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them. > & then you get situations like this: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577&lng=153.53896264714&z=17&pKey=1164980277280563&focus=photo&x=0.3457481526763355&y=0.5159430950498471&zoom=2.6582278481012658 then 100m further: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317&lng=153.53874804183&z=17&pKey=387825812412523&focus=photo&x=0.4645538612648733&y=0.5690565818776447&zoom=1.5949367088607593 which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115 Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also errors in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway! Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways
On Aug 17, 2022, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 12:26, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, is there any consensus on how to tag cycling on motorway shoulders? > > In some places, the simple tag bicycle=yes (or no) is used. > > We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some > motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them. > > In others, the left hand shoulder is tagged as a cycle lane, using > "cycleway=lane" or "cycleway:left=lane". Others have used > "cycleway=shoulder". > > In addition to the general bicycle=* access tag, where bicycles are allowed > we should tag what kind of bicycle facility is there. > > On the ground, the signs I know (in Vic and S NSW) usually read, "cyclists > use left shoulder" and "emergency lane, bicycles excepted". It's not > explicitly called a cycle lane in Vic or NSW road guidelines, only that > bicycle access is permitted along the road shoulder (as on any other > non-motorway road). > > Based on that signage I would say cycleway=shoulder is more appropriate as > indicates the shoulder is the designated place for bicycles (as opposed to > cycling in the motorway vehicle traffic lanes). > > Though sometimes it's not clear. Markings like > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=382158833064847 are common with marked > bicycle crossings which make it look more like a cyclelane than a shoulder > cyclists must use. > > In my mind, there's a big difference between tags that imply, "you're allowed > to ride on the motorway" (as on any other road) versus, "there's a dedicated > bike lane here". > > Yeah agreed, hence the difference between the bicycle=* access tag and the > cycling facility cyleway=*. I have also explicitly set bicycle=yes and bicycle=no tags on certain ways. That's another / supplemental way to do something similar. What we see here is that "depending on your use-case or the question you are asking, you might want to search for both / some of / all of /with others of... bicycle=* and/or access=* and/or cycleway=shoulder tags. These overlap, have slightly different shades of meaning, and sometimes smear together in the minds of mappers. OSM is not perfect and is sometimes complicated. Good dialog (like here, even ASKING of questions) is often helpful. There can be many answers and harmonizing / consensus happens among many. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 12:26, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, is there any consensus on how to tag cycling on motorway > shoulders? > > In some places, the simple tag bicycle=yes (or no) is used. > We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them. In others, the left hand shoulder is tagged as a cycle lane, using > "cycleway=lane" or "cycleway:left=lane". Others have used > "cycleway=shoulder". > In addition to the general bicycle=* access tag, where bicycles are allowed we should tag what kind of bicycle facility is there. On the ground, the signs I know (in Vic and S NSW) usually read, "cyclists > use left shoulder" and "emergency lane, bicycles excepted". It's not > explicitly called a cycle lane in Vic or NSW road guidelines, only that > bicycle access is permitted along the road shoulder (as on any other > non-motorway road). > Based on that signage I would say cycleway=shoulder is more appropriate as indicates the shoulder is the designated place for bicycles (as opposed to cycling in the motorway vehicle traffic lanes). Though sometimes it's not clear. Markings like https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=382158833064847 are common with marked bicycle crossings which make it look more like a cyclelane than a shoulder cyclists must use. > In my mind, there's a big difference between tags that imply, "you're > allowed to ride on the motorway" (as on any other road) versus, "there's a > dedicated bike lane here". > Yeah agreed, hence the difference between the bicycle=* access tag and the cycling facility cyleway=*. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways
On Aug 17, 2022, at 7:23 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, is there any consensus on how to tag cycling on motorway shoulders?
>
> In some places, the simple tag bicycle=yes (or no) is used. This is straight
> forward. In others, the left hand shoulder is tagged as a cycle lane, using
> "cycleway=lane" or "cycleway:left=lane". Others have used
> "cycleway=shoulder".
>
> On the ground, the signs I know (in Vic and S NSW) usually read, "cyclists
> use left shoulder" and "emergency lane, bicycles excepted". It's not
> explicitly called a cycle lane in Vic or NSW road guidelines, only that
> bicycle access is permitted along the road shoulder (as on any other
> non-motorway road).
>
> In my mind, there's a big difference between tags that imply, "you're allowed
> to ride on the motorway" (as on any other road) versus, "there's a dedicated
> bike lane here".
>
> FYI, this overpass turbo query shows some common tagging options in different
> colours: https://bit.ly/3TaYR8P
>
> Any thoughts? Thanks, Ian
It's a good discussion, you hit a lot of highs with directly-pointed questions.
I have tagged cycleway=shoulder on some of our "expressways," not motorways.
Here (California), motorways, which we call freeways, quite distinctly prohibit
bicycles, except brief segments where they are allowed for "sole connectivity"
reasons and strict regulatory signs ("Bicycles Must Exit") are found — these
are quite rare. Though I know of such roadways, I would tag cycleway=shoulder
here (I haven't done so, or maybe only once where I would not dare ride even as
I know it to be "technically legal" for those bold, adult, experienced...enough
to bike it). On some expressways, there is a very clearly delineated (most
frequently with stencil of bicycle / "BIKE LANE" paint, sometimes
"base-bendable reflector tags" every 10 meters or so at intersection merging
with autos zone / shared-lane, rarely with "raised dots" only, to mark a
cycleway lane...) "Bike Lane," quite succinctly tagged cycleway=lane. There
are newer, various flavors in urban areas in California to use different colors
here (green paint which entirely fills portions of some bike lanes).
I would encourage to map segments which are explicit (bicycles can, bicycles
cannot) with explicit tags. Easier said than done, I know, but when tags "hew
close" to what "is" (on the ground) or "signed" or (yet a bit weaker) "what is
known to be legally allowed here" then "tag it so."
OSM has really proliferated a myriad of quite exact tagging for cyclists in
urban areas with congested bicycle traffic and infrastructure; this is true.
Yet for the simple "this (often outback) highway allows bicycles in the
shoulder, under certain conditions..." it can be vague to tag that. If
shoulder, tag shoulder. That's like a bit of watercolor that can be "richened
up with deeper color" (with more specific tagging) if need be. It takes a bold
cyclist to cycle a cycleway=shoulder, especially as it is known to be either a
motorway (freeway here, bikes basically don't happen here) or an expressway.
An expressway with a cycleway=lane? Sure, you have to be "an adult rider" to
do that, but those lines of paint are much saner (for an experienced cyclist
accustomed to accompany higher-speed auto traffic in a nearby lane) than a
rude, raw shoulder on a motorway or expressway.
As usual, "tag your best." Those are my thoughts.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways
Hi folks, is there any consensus on how to tag cycling on motorway shoulders? In some places, the simple tag bicycle=yes (or no) is used. This is straight forward. In others, the left hand shoulder is tagged as a cycle lane, using "cycleway=lane" or "cycleway:left=lane". Others have used "cycleway=shoulder". On the ground, the signs I know (in Vic and S NSW) usually read, "cyclists use left shoulder" and "emergency lane, bicycles excepted". It's not explicitly called a cycle lane in Vic or NSW road guidelines, only that bicycle access is permitted along the road shoulder (as on any other non-motorway road). In my mind, there's a big difference between tags that imply, "you're allowed to ride on the motorway" (as on any other road) versus, "there's a dedicated bike lane here". FYI, this overpass turbo query shows some common tagging options in different colours: https://bit.ly/3TaYR8P Any thoughts? Thanks, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags
Hi Andrew, I really like what you're suggesting here. I'll adjust the draft I linked earlier to reflect what you've proposed below. If everyone is happy with the draft we can integrate it into our tagging guidelines proper. Dian On 2022-08-18 08:51, Andrew Hughes wrote: Hi Dian, Working with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and having data that honours the jurisdiction geography (I.e. state/territory border) is invaluable to us. I believe... Ways and State Route (relations) should split at the border. State routes typically form as members of the national route... therefore I would say .. 1. Ways are split or borders 2. Ways are members of state route relations network=AU:QLD 3. State relations are members of a national relation (if they make up the national network) network=AU I believe there is far less entropy in this convention as well. Thoughts? Cheers. Andrew On Fri, 12 Aug 2022, 2:38 pm Dian Ågesson, wrote: Excellent pick up Ben. For routes that cross state borders, I would favour using AU:NAT (or AU:COM/AU:FED/AU:AUS, something that says "interstate or national). I could also see an argument for creating a seperate relation for each state, with a national superrelation To be that seems like too much overhead. Dian On 2022-08-12 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 13:37, Ben Kelley wrote: I'm guessing more than one state has an A40. & how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative designations & names? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia) Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags
Hi Dian, Working with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and having data that honours the jurisdiction geography (I.e. state/territory border) is invaluable to us. I believe... Ways and State Route (relations) should split at the border. State routes typically form as members of the national route... therefore I would say .. 1. Ways are split or borders 2. Ways are members of state route relations network=AU:QLD 3. State relations are members of a national relation (if they make up the national network) network=AU I believe there is far less entropy in this convention as well. Thoughts? Cheers. Andrew On Fri, 12 Aug 2022, 2:38 pm Dian Ågesson, wrote: > Excellent pick up Ben. > > For routes that cross state borders, I would favour using AU:NAT (or > AU:COM/AU:FED/AU:AUS, something that says “interstate or national). > > I could also see an argument for creating a seperate relation for each > state, with a national superrelation…. To be that seems like too much > overhead. > > Dian > > > On 2022-08-12 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 13:37, Ben Kelley wrote: > > > > I'm guessing more than one state has an A40. > > > & how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative > designations & names? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia) > > Thanks > > Graeme > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
