Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Glenn Plas]

Hi,

comments below

On 01-10-17 15:06, Yves bxl-forever wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> It may be a good idea to freshen up the pages on the wiki to remove all 
> confusion about this.
> Perhaps we could summarize all the discussions as such.
> 
> 
> 1) If a street is one-way for motor traffic but open to cyclists in both 
> direction, we use this:
> 
>   oneway=yes
>   oneway:bicycle=no
> 
> (This scheme is better than the legacy cycleway=opposite tag, because it also 
> allows to add oneway:moped_P=no if we have the new M11 roadsign allowing 
> speed pedelecs too.)
> 
> 
> 
> 2) A properly-marked lane 
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Cycleway_lane1_be.jpg), i.e. 
> stripped lines
> In Belgian traffic rules, this is the same as a track (fietspad/piste 
> cyclable) and gives right-of-way to cyclists
> 
>   cycleway=lane
> 
>   (if cyclists can use the street in both directions, use cycleway:left
>   or cycleway:right if the situation is not the same on both sides)
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Just logos 
> (http://redac.cuk.ch/archives_v3/5237/bandecyclablesuggeree.png) or color, 
> but without the stripped lines
> This is the example eMerzh brought up to start the discussion.
> This situation does not do anything with regard to traffic rules, but is 
> useful for cycling applications because it feels a little safer than a street 
> with nothing.
> 
>   cycleway=shared_lane
>  
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?

You are totally correct is what I think.  Cycleway=opposite as per marc
marc's suggestion is wrong in this particular case.  well formulated.

Glenn


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Yves bxl-forever]

Hello,

It may be a good idea to freshen up the pages on the wiki to remove all 
confusion about this.
Perhaps we could summarize all the discussions as such.


1) If a street is one-way for motor traffic but open to cyclists in both 
direction, we use this:

oneway=yes
oneway:bicycle=no

(This scheme is better than the legacy cycleway=opposite tag, because it also 
allows to add oneway:moped_P=no if we have the new M11 roadsign allowing speed 
pedelecs too.)



2) A properly-marked lane 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Cycleway_lane1_be.jpg), i.e. stripped 
lines
In Belgian traffic rules, this is the same as a track (fietspad/piste cyclable) 
and gives right-of-way to cyclists

cycleway=lane

(if cyclists can use the street in both directions, use cycleway:left
or cycleway:right if the situation is not the same on both sides)



3) Just logos (http://redac.cuk.ch/archives_v3/5237/bandecyclablesuggeree.png) 
or color, but without the stripped lines
This is the example eMerzh brought up to start the discussion.
This situation does not do anything with regard to traffic rules, but is useful 
for cycling applications because it feels a little safer than a street with 
nothing.

cycleway=shared_lane
 



What do you think?
Yves



On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 18:08:21 +
marc marc  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Le 30. 09. 17 à 18:36, joost schouppe a écrit :
> > I think everyone agreed that this is nothing more than "maquillage"  
> not me, not always :)
> 
> > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> >   
> this traffic sign is not a "maquillage".
> It is the traffic sign that tells you that another traffic sign at the 
> other end of the street allows a cyclist to take the one-way street.
> If this mark did not exist, you do not know it when going forward
> in this street in the "one-way" direction.
> 
> > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8676849,4.3295925,3a,75y,183.24h,93.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLOB7wV_P3Sqi3kbypjpQcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> >   
> here is the second traffic sign.
> 
> > https://www.touring.be/fr/articles/regles-de-circulation-pour-les-cyclistes 
> >  
> Without any sign, a cyclist can not go backward in a "one-way" street.
> 
> maybe the regionalization of the road code has * the situation but 
> that is, as far as I know, the rule in Brussels where is the street of 
> the first photo.
> 
> So this street should be tagged with cycleway=opposite. see wiki :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
> Use cycleway=opposite for situations where cyclists are permitted to 
> travel in both directions on a road which is one-way for normal traffic, 
> in situations where there is no dedicated contra-flow lane marked for 
> cyclists.
> 
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 30. 09. 17 à 18:36, joost schouppe a écrit :
> I think everyone agreed that this is nothing more than "maquillage"
not me, not always :)

> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
this traffic sign is not a "maquillage".
It is the traffic sign that tells you that another traffic sign at the 
other end of the street allows a cyclist to take the one-way street.
If this mark did not exist, you do not know it when going forward
in this street in the "one-way" direction.

> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8676849,4.3295925,3a,75y,183.24h,93.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLOB7wV_P3Sqi3kbypjpQcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
here is the second traffic sign.

> https://www.touring.be/fr/articles/regles-de-circulation-pour-les-cyclistes
Without any sign, a cyclist can not go backward in a "one-way" street.

maybe the regionalization of the road code has * the situation but 
that is, as far as I know, the rule in Brussels where is the street of 
the first photo.

So this street should be tagged with cycleway=opposite. see wiki :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
Use cycleway=opposite for situations where cyclists are permitted to 
travel in both directions on a road which is one-way for normal traffic, 
in situations where there is no dedicated contra-flow lane marked for 
cyclists.

Regards,
Marc
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[joost schouppe]

We also discussed this quite extensively on Riot. I think everyone agreed
that this is nothing more than "maquillage", but that the proper tag for
this maquillage is in fact shared_lane.

> Jo: we could use shared_lane, but then we either have to do that on all
highways where bicycles aren't banned, or we go on with that as the de
facto standard.

I don't think this is a correct conclusion, as the explanation of
shared_lane on the wiki is quite clear: only tag it when there is
waste-of-paint.

I think it does make sense to tag them, even if only to be able to see
which roads to avoid when biking - as they indicate the road manager was
aware of the problem, but didn't find a proper solution :)
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Glenn Plas]

On 30-09-17 08:13, Jo wrote:
> True, we could use shared_lane, but then we either have to do that on
> all highways where bicycles aren't banned, or we go on with that as the
> de facto standard.
> 
> The fact that a bicycle is drawn, doesn't make it 'more' of a shared
> lane than it would be without the wasted paint.
> 
> All it does is make motorists aware that there might be bicycles sharing
> their lane. Something they should have been aware of anyway.

It also confirms for sure what Marc suggests for tagging, that this is
indeed a shared_lane.

I support tagging this as he proposes.  But so far for legality, this is
just suggestive painting.  Traffic signs should also be taken into
account as they override whatever is painted.

Glenn



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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Jo]

It definitely is not always permitted to ride a bicycle against the flow of
traffic on oneway streets.

The law was changed at some point to allow administrations to create oneway
streets where bicycles are allowed in both directions, but it's not for all
oneway strees.

Jo

2017-09-30 11:56 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> I thought was always allowed to drive in the opposite direction under
> Belgian law. What does not mean that a sign to remind car drivers  is
> welcome.
>
> m.
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 9:19 AM, marc marc 
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Le 29. 09. 17 à 22:42, eMerzh a écrit :
> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,
> 141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> >
> > imho the bike painted in the opposite direction to what appears to be a
> > one-way street is intended to warn that bike is allowed in the reverse
> > direction (a traffic sign should exist under the one-way traffic sign
> > but no traffic sign exist at the other end of the street)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marc
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Marc Gemis]

I thought was always allowed to drive in the opposite direction under
Belgian law. What does not mean that a sign to remind car drivers  is
welcome.

m.

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 9:19 AM, marc marc  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 29. 09. 17 à 22:42, eMerzh a écrit :
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
> imho the bike painted in the opposite direction to what appears to be a
> one-way street is intended to warn that bike is allowed in the reverse
> direction (a traffic sign should exist under the one-way traffic sign
> but no traffic sign exist at the other end of the street)
>
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 29. 09. 17 à 22:42, eMerzh a écrit :
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

imho the bike painted in the opposite direction to what appears to be a 
one-way street is intended to warn that bike is allowed in the reverse 
direction (a traffic sign should exist under the one-way traffic sign 
but no traffic sign exist at the other end of the street)

Regards,
Marc
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Jo]

True, we could use shared_lane, but then we either have to do that on all
highways where bicycles aren't banned, or we go on with that as the de
facto standard.

The fact that a bicycle is drawn, doesn't make it 'more' of a shared lane
than it would be without the wasted paint.

All it does is make motorists aware that there might be bicycles sharing
their lane. Something they should have been aware of anyway.

2017-09-30 8:07 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> cycleway=shared_lane
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Shared_cycle_lanes
>
> note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> shared_lane
> says nothing about any required legal status.
>
> m.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM, eMerzh  wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > i stumble upon some streets that have small cycles drawn on the street
> now
> > and then, and often there are small dashed line at the start or the end
> of
> > the street,
> > but tagging those as cycleway seems a bit weird as there are no clear
> > delimitations...
> >
> >
> > How to you tag thoses?
> >
> >
> > An example :
> > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,
> 141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Marc Gemis]

cycleway=shared_lane
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Shared_cycle_lanes

note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shared_lane
says nothing about any required legal status.

m.


On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM, eMerzh  wrote:
> hi,
>
> i stumble upon some streets that have small cycles drawn on the street now
> and then, and often there are small dashed line at the start or the end of
> the street,
> but tagging those as cycleway seems a bit weird as there are no clear
> delimitations...
>
>
> How to you tag thoses?
>
>
> An example :
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
>
> Thanks
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[André Pirard]

On 2017-09-29 22:46, eMerzh wrote:
> just another example a little more cycleway...
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=GnblTsSKolUsjQ6URC0zyg=photo=50.86767032=4.3280441=17=0.510308202857=0.4999=0
>
> but still for me the delimitations are not really clear ... and
> calling that a cycleway seems. unfair :p
>
> 2017-09-29 22:42 GMT+02:00 eMerzh  >:
>
> hi,
>
> i stumble upon some streets that have small cycles drawn on the
> street now and then, and often there are small dashed line at the
> start or the end of the street,
> but tagging those as cycleway seems a bit weird as there are no
> clear delimitations...
>
>
> How to you tag thoses?
>
>
> An example :
> 
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> 
> 
>
>
> Thanks
>
Why not ask the police?
Isn't it their job to inform about doubtful road signs?
For the fun, send them the URL of the wiki and say "please choose".
And post the answer back here !!!
And if they answer that those signs are lookalikes, answer that
lookalikes must be fined ;-)

Cheers

André.





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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Jo]

It's not only in Brussels that they had leftover paint. Maybe it would have
been better if they had drawn some flowers...

They are indeed meaningless as far as traffic rules go. I guess they only
mean something to the politicians who decided to draw them.

Polyglot

2017-09-29 22:56 GMT+02:00 Wouter Hamelinck :

> Ah, Brussels where they think that painting cycles randomly in streets and
> on sidewalks results in cycling infrastructure.
> It is very simply. The meaning of those painted cycles is the same as when
> they would have painted flowers or hearts or something; none whatsoever. It
> doesn't mean anything. Maybe that they had some remnants of paint that they
> wanted to get rid of.
> The practical answer is that you don't tag them.
>
> wouter
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM, eMerzh  wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> i stumble upon some streets that have small cycles drawn on the street
>> now and then, and often there are small dashed line at the start or the end
>> of the street,
>> but tagging those as cycleway seems a bit weird as there are no clear
>> delimitations...
>>
>>
>> How to you tag thoses?
>>
>>
>> An example :
>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.
>> 06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
>- Thor Heyerdahl
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Wouter Hamelinck]

Ah, Brussels where they think that painting cycles randomly in streets and
on sidewalks results in cycling infrastructure.
It is very simply. The meaning of those painted cycles is the same as when
they would have painted flowers or hearts or something; none whatsoever. It
doesn't mean anything. Maybe that they had some remnants of paint that they
wanted to get rid of.
The practical answer is that you don't tag them.

wouter

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM, eMerzh  wrote:

> hi,
>
> i stumble upon some streets that have small cycles drawn on the street now
> and then, and often there are small dashed line at the start or the end of
> the street,
> but tagging those as cycleway seems a bit weird as there are no clear
> delimitations...
>
>
> How to you tag thoses?
>
>
> An example :
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,
> 141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
>
> Thanks
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>


-- 
"Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
   - Thor Heyerdahl
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[eMerzh]

just another example a little more cycleway...
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=GnblTsSKolUsjQ6URC0zyg=photo=50.86767032=4.3280441=17=0.510308202857=0.4999=0

but still for me the delimitations are not really clear ... and calling
that a cycleway seems. unfair :p

2017-09-29 22:42 GMT+02:00 eMerzh :

> hi,
>
> i stumble upon some streets that have small cycles drawn on the street now
> and then, and often there are small dashed line at the start or the end of
> the street,
> but tagging those as cycleway seems a bit weird as there are no clear
> delimitations...
>
>
> How to you tag thoses?
>
>
> An example :
> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,
> 141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!
> 2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
>
> Thanks
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be