Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Robert Skedgell]

That seems to cover everything I can think of in London. I'll have to
get off my backside and take some Mapillary images of new infra as soon
as the experimental traffic orders come into force.

On 19/06/2020 16:29, Simon Still wrote:
> Try this - description and photo of each type I’ve identified.  Most of
> these photos are London infra, many COVID emergency meausres
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VL0MmHJoapd4JRgDhow0el2H06IJNsK-8KycxtWSaEw/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> You should be able to leave comments on that doc as well 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB
>> mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a photo of such feature?
>>
>> https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png
>> link is dead
>>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Simon Still]

Try this - description and photo of each type I’ve identified.  Most of these 
photos are London infra, many COVID emergency meausres

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VL0MmHJoapd4JRgDhow0el2H06IJNsK-8KycxtWSaEw/edit?usp=sharing
 

 

You should be able to leave comments on that doc as well 



> On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB 
>  wrote:
> 
> Do you have a photo of such feature?
> 
> https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png
>  
> 
> link is dead
> 
> 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Tony OSM]

Hi Guys

While investigating I cam across this company who have a product line 
which uses these terms and shows pictures - they have an exemplar from 
Greenwich which I believe to be in London.


site is - http://www.rediweldtraffic.co.uk/products/cycle-lane-products/

TonyS999

On 16/06/2020 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:

Do you have a photo of such feature?

https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png
link is dead


Jun 16, 2020, 20:21 by simon.st...@gmail.com:

Full disclosure - I’m currently working for London Cycling
Campaign on a project to bring data from the Transport For London
Cycling Infrastructure Database to OSM.

As part of this the question arose as to how to tag cycle
facilities that are give more protection and comfort than a
painted lane on the road but not as much as a fully protected lane
with, say, a 50cm concrete kerb separating cyclists from motor
traffic.

This was raised here -

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/23

There are may types of ‘hybrid’, ‘partial, or ‘soft’ separation.
 The London COVID-19 ‘StreetScape’ programme is bring a lot of
this type of infrastructure to London’s streets very quickly.
 Looking at OSM Wiki and previous discussions it doesn’t appear
that there is a definitive way to record these. And indeed,
looking at the recent infrastructure and how it has been entered
to OSM by users it is not happening consistently as a result.

My view on this is that the greatest distinction is between a
painted lane and a track (that has some form of protection).  The
difference between the different types of track is less than
between no protection at all and ’something’.

Given the multitude of different ways of giving some protection to
cyclists I wonder whether it is better to treat them all as
variants of track (since they all offer much greater protection
than a lane but vary in comfort level - in my view in this order
of comfort).

cycleway:track=kerb
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb_wand
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb
cycleway:track=concrete_barrier
cycleway:track=plastic_barrier

cycleway:track=stepped
cycleway:track=wandorca
cycleway:track=wand
cycleway:track=orca


There may be more I've forgotten.

This would mean that routing engines would see either lane or
track at the basic level, but the routing engine designer could
then add further refinement using info about the type of track (in
combination  perhaps with the size/speed of the road it was
alongside) if that info was available.   The detail of the precise
type of infra is relevant (rather than just simply tagging these
with a generic tag such as ‘part protected’ or ‘hybrid’ since it
may be that some types of infra prove more successful or have
safety issues and there is a desire to identify locations where
they are present (eg the concrete or water filed barriers prevent
informal crossing of the road by pedestrians)

Since this infra is being rolled out quickly and in volume (both
in London and internationally - though London, due to the
fragmented local authorities seems to be doing it in far more
varied ways than other places) there is a benefit to establishing
this now




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Do you have a photo of such feature?

https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png
link is dead


Jun 16, 2020, 20:21 by simon.st...@gmail.com:

> Full disclosure - I’m currently working for London Cycling Campaign on a 
> project to bring data from the Transport For London Cycling Infrastructure 
> Database to OSM.
>
> As part of this the question arose as to how to tag cycle facilities that are 
> give more protection and comfort than a painted lane on the road but not as 
> much as a fully protected lane with, say, a 50cm concrete kerb separating 
> cyclists from motor traffic. 
>
> This was raised here - 
>
> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/23
>
> There are may types of ‘hybrid’, ‘partial, or ‘soft’ separation.  The London 
> COVID-19 ‘StreetScape’ programme is bring a lot of this type of 
> infrastructure to London’s streets very quickly.  Looking at OSM Wiki and 
> previous discussions it doesn’t appear that there is a definitive way to 
> record these. And indeed, looking at the recent infrastructure and how it has 
> been entered to OSM by users it is not happening consistently as a result. 
>
> My view on this is that the greatest distinction is between a painted lane 
> and a track (that has some form of protection).  The difference between the 
> different types of track is less than between no protection at all and 
> ’something’.  
>
>
> Given the multitude of different ways of giving some protection to cyclists I 
> wonder whether it is better to treat them all as variants of track (since 
> they all offer much greater protection than a lane but vary in comfort level 
> - in my view in this order of comfort).
>
>
>
> cycleway:track=kerb
> cycleway:track=rubber_kerb_wand
> cycleway:track=rubber_kerb
>
>
> cycleway:track=concrete_barrier
> cycleway:track=plastic_barrier
>
>
>
> cycleway:track=stepped
> cycleway:track=wandorca
> cycleway:track=wand
> cycleway:track=orca
>
>
>
>
> There may be more I've forgotten.
>
> This would mean that routing engines would see either lane or track at the 
> basic level, but the routing engine designer could then add further 
> refinement using info about the type of track (in combination  perhaps with 
> the size/speed of the road it was alongside) if that info was available.   
> The detail of the precise type of infra is relevant (rather than just simply 
> tagging these with a generic tag such as ‘part protected’ or ‘hybrid’ since 
> it may be that some types of infra prove more successful or have safety 
> issues and there is a desire to identify locations where they are present (eg 
> the concrete or water filed barriers prevent informal crossing of the road by 
> pedestrians) 
>
> Since this infra is being rolled out quickly and in volume (both in London 
> and internationally - though London, due to the fragmented local authorities 
> seems to be doing it in far more varied ways than other places) there is a 
> benefit to establishing this now 
>
>  
>

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

[Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Simon Still]

Full disclosure - I’m currently working for London Cycling Campaign on a 
project to bring data from the Transport For London Cycling Infrastructure 
Database to OSM.

As part of this the question arose as to how to tag cycle facilities that are 
give more protection and comfort than a painted lane on the road but not as 
much as a fully protected lane with, say, a 50cm concrete kerb separating 
cyclists from motor traffic. 

This was raised here - 

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/23 


There are may types of ‘hybrid’, ‘partial, or ‘soft’ separation.  The London 
COVID-19 ‘StreetScape’ programme is bring a lot of this type of infrastructure 
to London’s streets very quickly.  Looking at OSM Wiki and previous discussions 
it doesn’t appear that there is a definitive way to record these. And indeed, 
looking at the recent infrastructure and how it has been entered to OSM by 
users it is not happening consistently as a result. 

My view on this is that the greatest distinction is between a painted lane and 
a track (that has some form of protection).  The difference between the 
different types of track is less than between no protection at all and 
’something’.  

Given the multitude of different ways of giving some protection to cyclists I 
wonder whether it is better to treat them all as variants of track (since they 
all offer much greater protection than a lane but vary in comfort level - in my 
view in this order of comfort).

cycleway:track=kerb
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb_wand
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb

cycleway:track=concrete_barrier
cycleway:track=plastic_barrier

cycleway:track=stepped
cycleway:track=wandorca
cycleway:track=wand
cycleway:track=orca



There may be more I've forgotten.

This would mean that routing engines would see either lane or track at the 
basic level, but the routing engine designer could then add further refinement 
using info about the type of track (in combination  perhaps with the size/speed 
of the road it was alongside) if that info was available.   The detail of the 
precise type of infra is relevant (rather than just simply tagging these with a 
generic tag such as ‘part protected’ or ‘hybrid’ since it may be that some 
types of infra prove more successful or have safety issues and there is a 
desire to identify locations where they are present (eg the concrete or water 
filed barriers prevent informal crossing of the road by pedestrians) 

Since this infra is being rolled out quickly and in volume (both in London and 
internationally - though London, due to the fragmented local authorities seems 
to be doing it in far more varied ways than other places) there is a benefit to 
establishing this now 

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