Re: [talk-au] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths

[Simon Slater]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 04:28:45 PM Sam Russell wrote:
> NSW's specifications for bicycle infrastructure are… interesting.  

Slightly off-topic ... a Dutch planner comparing cycleways in Holland and 
Australia said that in Holland the cyclists are protected by barriers like the 
parked cars or even a gutter in the least.  Yet in Australia we protect the 
parked cars by the cyclists.
-- 
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789
http://linuxcounter.net 

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

Re: [talk-au] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths

[Sam Russell]

I'll raise you bicycle=designated ;; width=0.15 ;; in City of Sydney two
years ago even... old South Sydney Council playing funny buggers with the
regulations to make cycling lawful either side of a major road where the
lane-width footpath was breached by a cul-de-sac.

NSW's specifications for bicycle infrastructure are… interesting.  But far
too often they've resulted in sub-standard infrastructure due to
engineering allowances, and the habit of building transport or commuter
infrastructure as shared leisure paths with meandering that reduces the
practicable speed well below the design maximum of 30 km/h.  There are
redesignated footpaths I prefer to some RMS bicycle "infrastructure."
 Lane-width footpaths without side streets for example.

One concrete tagging example:
I'm happy with the eventual results of the editing over the difference
between
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174743358
and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183802804

The former is designated and pleasant to ride on (more so than Lenthall)
The latter is a standard footpath narrowed to duckboard width by
obstructions, but legal to ride on because of how Shared Use Path
regulations work.

bicycle=designated/yes/permissive for the lawful right to cycle
smoothness, width, for the path quality

People seem to be in general agreement on what infrastructure constitutes
track
sidewalk / footpath
cycleway
even if it is a summation of who uses it for what, how wide, how it was
designed, etc.

Sam.

On 4 April 2016 at 09:25, Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> Well, for NSW at least there are some guidelines for what constitutes
> a cycleway..
>
>
> http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/documents/technical-manuals/nswbicyclev12aa_i.pdf
>
> In other states, that permit cycling on footpaths, it also makes sense
> to distinguish what is a footpath on which you are permitted to cycle,
> from a shared path.
>
> So, its not just a cultural habit.  It's a tagging style that conveys
> the nature of the facility.
>
> Thinking of Botany Bay Council in particular, here.  highway=footway,
> bicycle=designated, width=.7
>
> Ian.
>
> On 3 April 2016 at 13:01, Sam Russell  wrote:
> > On 3/09/2015 1:35 PM, Chris wrote:
> >> Hello, I am new to this group and have a question about pedestrian and
> >> bicycle shared paths. I can't find anything in the archives.
> >>
> >> In NSW, shared paths fall into two broad categories:
> >
> > You're confusing highway= and bicycle=yes / bicycle=designated which
> relate
> > to render hinting and the lawful uses with the physical infrastructure.
> >
> >
> > bicycle=yes can be on stairs.  dirt.  It is a lawful right to use, ie:
> the
> > road related area extended from or towards a Shared Use Path sign, Sep
> Path
> > sign, Cycleway sign (bicycle only), council reserve / park non-road
> related
> > area (IANAL on that one) etc.
> >
> >> (1) Sidewalk footpaths that have been designated as shared paths. In
> >
> > Tag the material features and let routing software figure it out
> >
> > width=0.6 or width=0.8 or width=1 or width=1.2
> >
> > smoothness=excellent; good; intermediate; bad
> >
> > surface=concrete etc.
> >
> > maxspeed=50 ; 40 ; 10
> >
> > maxspeed:advisory=10
> >
> > maxspeed:practical=5;10;15
> >
> > incline=up;down;15%;etc
> >
> > traffic_calming=bollard;chicane
> >
> > steps=yes
> >
> > ramp:bicycle=no
> >
> >
> > I've noticed that people have a cultural habit of tagging highway=footway
> > for paths narrower than 1.5m constructed as footpaths and later
> designated,
> > whereas paths >=1.5m regardless tend to stay as highway=cycleway when
> > tagged.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> > Sam.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths

[Warin]

On 3/09/2015 1:35 PM, Chris wrote:
Hello, I am new to this group and have a question about pedestrian and 
bicycle shared paths. I can't find anything in the archives.


In NSW, shared paths fall into two broad categories:

(1) Sidewalk footpaths that have been designated as shared paths. In 
urban areas these often have poor continuity and high friction (i.e., 
high pedestrian volumes, lots of street furniture or other 
obstructions, inadequate width, abutting property entrances), e.g., 
the Victoria Road shared path in Rozelle 
(http://bikesydney.org/new10/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/BIKESydney_representation_of_City_West_Link_Cy-6.jpg).


2) Purpose-built shared paths with good continuity, generous width and 
minimal friction, e.g., M7 shared path 
(http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/cmsAdmin/uploads/WestlinkM70210.jpg).


These two types of shared path offer quite different levels of 
utility/comfort/speed to bicycle riders.


However, following the Australian Tagging Guidelines, these should be 
tagged in exactly the same way (highway=cycleway, foot=designated). So 
how can a bicycle routing algorithm take into account the differing 
levels of utility/generalised cost?


In the US, I understand that (1) would be tagged 
highway=footway,bicycle=yes, while (2) would be tagged 
highway=cycleway, foot=designated, making it possible to distinguish 
between them.





The width can be tagged - this already exists but is not in frequent use.
You could take the view of the minimum effective width along the route 
(way) being the effective width.


Traffic volumes is not something OSM tags (for vehicles nor pedestrians).

The crossing of entries is something that can be tagged - add ways with 
highway=service, service=driveway.


--
Distinguishing between these things is up to the render (the map maker) 
rather than the mapper ... so even if tagged differently, correctly .. 
the rendering may not resolve the difference. There are a number of 
different renders - some of them bicycle specific. Some renders display 
highway=footway the same as highway=footway,bicycle=yes... some 
highway=cycleway the same as highway=cycleway, foot=designated.


Personally I prefer the US method of tagging.
I have also come across a mapper who has used cyclelane=yes where there 
is no cycle lane to mark routes used by cyclists...
I would much rather see that tagged as a route, though there are some 
who demand that these only be tagged if they are 'officially recognised'.
As OZ has less 'officially recognised' than say the UK .. I can see no 
reason why these bicycle routes cannot be marked out as they are 'used 
by cyclists'.
This is much more truthfull than marking them with infrastructure that 
does not exist.




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

Re: [talk-au] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths

[Andrew Harvey]

I agree with what Warin said, but perhaps footway=sidewalk
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk could be
added as a tag for case (1), since these are basically sidewalks which
have been repurposed as shared sidewalk/cycleway?

On 3 September 2015 at 13:35, Chris  wrote:
> Hello, I am new to this group and have a question about pedestrian and
> bicycle shared paths. I can't find anything in the archives.
>
> In NSW, shared paths fall into two broad categories:
>
> (1) Sidewalk footpaths that have been designated as shared paths. In urban
> areas these often have poor continuity and high friction (i.e., high
> pedestrian volumes, lots of street furniture or other obstructions,
> inadequate width, abutting property entrances), e.g., the Victoria Road
> shared path in Rozelle
> (http://bikesydney.org/new10/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/BIKESydney_representation_of_City_West_Link_Cy-6.jpg).
>
> 2) Purpose-built shared paths with good continuity, generous width and
> minimal friction, e.g., M7 shared path
> (http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/cmsAdmin/uploads/WestlinkM70210.jpg).
>
> These two types of shared path offer quite different levels of
> utility/comfort/speed to bicycle riders.
>
> However, following the Australian Tagging Guidelines, these should be tagged
> in exactly the same way (highway=cycleway, foot=designated). So how can a
> bicycle routing algorithm take into account the differing levels of
> utility/generalised cost?
>
> In the US, I understand that (1) would be tagged
> highway=footway,bicycle=yes, while (2) would be tagged highway=cycleway,
> foot=designated, making it possible to distinguish between them.
>
> Chris Standen

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

[talk-au] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths

[Chris]

Hello, I am new to this group and have a question about pedestrian and
bicycle shared paths. I can't find anything in the archives.

In NSW, shared paths fall into two broad categories:

(1) Sidewalk footpaths that have been designated as shared paths. In urban
areas these often have poor continuity and high friction (i.e., high
pedestrian volumes, lots of street furniture or other obstructions,
inadequate width, abutting property entrances), e.g., the Victoria Road
shared path in Rozelle (http://bikesydney.org/new10/wp
-content/uploads/2011/01/BIKESydney_representation_of_City_West_Link_Cy-6.
jpg).

2) Purpose-built shared paths with good continuity, generous width and
minimal friction, e.g., M7 shared path (http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/
cmsAdmin/uploads/WestlinkM70210.jpg).

These two types of shared path offer quite different levels of
utility/comfort/speed to bicycle riders.

However, following the Australian Tagging Guidelines, these should be
tagged in exactly the same way (highway=cycleway, foot=designated). So how
can a bicycle routing algorithm take into account the differing levels of
utility/generalised cost?

In the US, I understand that (1) would be tagged highway=footway,bicycle=yes,
while (2) would be tagged highway=cycleway, foot=designated, making it
possible to distinguish between them.

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