Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-16 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:53 AM, John F. Eldredge 
wrote:

> One thing that is an issue with many of the marked bike lanes in
> Nashville, TN is that they aren't contiguous.  You will come to a point
> where the road narrows, such as for a bridge, and the bikes are forced to
> share a lane with motor traffic.  This makes bike riding at rush hour a
> risky activity.
>

If it's got the shared lane marking (the bicycle symbol with >> above it),
the >> part points to the part of the lane you should be riding down.
Merging's the hard part, but once you're out there, and get used to the
idea of staying farther away from the right edge so people don't try to
squeeze by on the left when there's traffic already next to you in the next
lane, you're golden.  It's more psychological than anything, just be glad
you're not having to do it at drunk-o'clock at night near casinos full of
tourists.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-16 Thread John F. Eldredge 
One thing that is an issue with many of the marked bike lanes in 
Nashville, TN is that they aren't contiguous.  You will come to a point 
where the road narrows, such as for a bridge, and the bikes are forced 
to share a lane with motor traffic.  This makes bike riding at rush hour 
a risky activity.


On 02/16/2017 10:38 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Spencer Gardner 
> wrote:


Good catch on the MUTCD language. I'm not opposed to tagging with
a bike lane and a parking lane, but then what should be used as
the assumed width of the bike lane? This has direct relevance for
my application, where I need to know how wide a bike lane is.
Would you suggest an assumed width for parking and then subtract
from the total to arrive at the operable space for people on bicycles?


Check the local standard and get a sample.  Current federal guidelines 
put parking at 8 feet (and is fairly typical), bicycle lanes must be 4 
feet minimum, 5 feet if there's parking adjacent, measured from the 
edge of the gutter pan, or if there is none, the curb face or the edge 
of the roadway (being either the physical edge or the painted edge, 
whichever is closer to the centerline) to the inside of the lane 
marking.  Oregon-specific, 6 feet any time an adjacent lane allows 
motor vehicles or is oncoming.  In practice, it's rare to see a lane 
less than 6 feet wide anymore regardless of application because a 
cargo bike, most adult tricycles and many bikes pulling trailers are a 
tight squeeze in a six foot lane.  It's starting to get common to see 
7 foot lanes in Oregon, often with a 1 foot buffer on the left and a 
two foot buffer between the right edge of the lane and the edgeline 
itself, for a 10 foot single-file bike lane.



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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-16 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Spencer Gardner 
wrote:

> Good catch on the MUTCD language. I'm not opposed to tagging with a bike
> lane and a parking lane, but then what should be used as the assumed width
> of the bike lane? This has direct relevance for my application, where I
> need to know how wide a bike lane is. Would you suggest an assumed width
> for parking and then subtract from the total to arrive at the operable
> space for people on bicycles?
>

Check the local standard and get a sample.  Current federal guidelines put
parking at 8 feet (and is fairly typical), bicycle lanes must be 4 feet
minimum, 5 feet if there's parking adjacent, measured from the edge of the
gutter pan, or if there is none, the curb face or the edge of the roadway
(being either the physical edge or the painted edge, whichever is closer to
the centerline) to the inside of the lane marking.  Oregon-specific, 6 feet
any time an adjacent lane allows motor vehicles or is oncoming.  In
practice, it's rare to see a lane less than 6 feet wide anymore regardless
of application because a cargo bike, most adult tricycles and many bikes
pulling trailers are a tight squeeze in a six foot lane.  It's starting to
get common to see 7 foot lanes in Oregon, often with a 1 foot buffer on the
left and a two foot buffer between the right edge of the lane and the
edgeline itself, for a 10 foot single-file bike lane.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-16 Thread Spencer Gardner 
Good catch on the MUTCD language. I'm not opposed to tagging with a bike
lane and a parking lane, but then what should be used as the assumed width
of the bike lane? This has direct relevance for my application, where I
need to know how wide a bike lane is. Would you suggest an assumed width
for parking and then subtract from the total to arrive at the operable
space for people on bicycles?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Spencer Gardner  > wrote:
>
>> The problem I see with that approach is that it doesn't distinguish
>> between a road with a striped bike lane next to a parking lane and a road
>> with the combined lane.
>>
>
> I'm not sure that's a distinction that makes a difference.
>
>
>>  is considered a different facility from an engineering perspective.
>>
>
> Is this something that's California specific?  I know California does a
> lot of things that noplace else in the US does because the benefit of
> federal highway funds outweighs the costs of implementing them for
> California, but this would be splitting hairs going a long way back.
> Especially since California was one of the major relevant jurisdictions for
> getting bicycle facilities in to the federal standards back in the '70s.
>
> USMUTCD 2009 rev 1 and 2 inclusive
>  (the
> current edition of the federal standards) seems to suggest it's not a
> different kind of facility.  Here's what appears to be the relevant parts:
>
> Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines, line 6: If a bicycle lane is
> marked on the outside portion of the traveled way, the edge line that would
> mark the outside edge of the bicycle lane may be omitted.
>
> I read that as "It should have an edge line, but it doesn't have to have
> an edge line".
>
> The only other thing that I could see someone construing a situation like
> this with no edge line as is a "shared lane", but Section 9C.07 Shared Lane
> Marking line 3 specifically says "03 Shared Lane Markings shall not be used
> on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes."  So that's not the case, plus
> it's lacking the "Corporal Bicycle" style shared lane marking in Figure
> 9C-9, so it's not a shared lane.
>
> I'd say "Pretend there's an edge line between the shoulder and the bike
> lane" since that's what it is in practice.  This is up there with being
> regionally idiomatic in leaving off markings that aren't strictly required,
> like crosswalk lines and stop bars at signalized intersections with
> signalized crosswalks in my neck of the woods.  Are they marked on the
> ground?  No.  Is it still highway=traffic_signals with
> crossing=traffic_signals where the crosswalks functionally exist?  Yes.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-16 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Spencer Gardner 
wrote:

> The problem I see with that approach is that it doesn't distinguish
> between a road with a striped bike lane next to a parking lane and a road
> with the combined lane.
>

I'm not sure that's a distinction that makes a difference.


>  is considered a different facility from an engineering perspective.
>

Is this something that's California specific?  I know California does a lot
of things that noplace else in the US does because the benefit of federal
highway funds outweighs the costs of implementing them for California, but
this would be splitting hairs going a long way back.  Especially since
California was one of the major relevant jurisdictions for getting bicycle
facilities in to the federal standards back in the '70s.

USMUTCD 2009 rev 1 and 2 inclusive
 (the
current edition of the federal standards) seems to suggest it's not a
different kind of facility.  Here's what appears to be the relevant parts:

Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines, line 6: If a bicycle lane is
marked on the outside portion of the traveled way, the edge line that would
mark the outside edge of the bicycle lane may be omitted.

I read that as "It should have an edge line, but it doesn't have to have an
edge line".

The only other thing that I could see someone construing a situation like
this with no edge line as is a "shared lane", but Section 9C.07 Shared Lane
Marking line 3 specifically says "03 Shared Lane Markings shall not be used
on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes."  So that's not the case, plus
it's lacking the "Corporal Bicycle" style shared lane marking in Figure
9C-9, so it's not a shared lane.

I'd say "Pretend there's an edge line between the shoulder and the bike
lane" since that's what it is in practice.  This is up there with being
regionally idiomatic in leaving off markings that aren't strictly required,
like crosswalk lines and stop bars at signalized intersections with
signalized crosswalks in my neck of the woods.  Are they marked on the
ground?  No.  Is it still highway=traffic_signals with
crossing=traffic_signals where the crosswalks functionally exist?  Yes.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-16 Thread Spencer Gardner 
No. That's not a mistake. My city uses this as a standard treatment in a
number of locations. And as was mentioned earlier this facility type is
also common in California.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Spencer Gardner  > wrote:
>
>> Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined
>> bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there
>> are a number of such facilities in my city.
>>
>> For reference, you can see an example here:
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.06056159=-89.45121
>> 134=17=XByvWxyrk9quLK-noyoB5g=photo=mapbox_streets
>> Notice the bike lane sign above the speed limit sign and the cars parked
>> on the side. These are also accompanied with pavement markings indicating
>> it is a bicycle facility. In effect it's like a regular bike lane next to a
>> parking lane, but there's no stripe to separate the two.
>>
>
> I think they just forgot to put the shoulder line down.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-16 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Spencer Gardner 
wrote:

> Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined
> bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there
> are a number of such facilities in my city.
>
> For reference, you can see an example here:
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.06056159=-89.45121134=17=
> XByvWxyrk9quLK-noyoB5g=photo=mapbox_streets
> Notice the bike lane sign above the speed limit sign and the cars parked
> on the side. These are also accompanied with pavement markings indicating
> it is a bicycle facility. In effect it's like a regular bike lane next to a
> parking lane, but there's no stripe to separate the two.
>

I think they just forgot to put the shoulder line down.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-03 Thread Harald Kliems 
Bradley, in colder climates the difference is more than aesthetic. A lot of
these bike become unusable for people riding bikes in the winter because
they don't get fully plowed to the curb and then parked cars take up the
whole remainder of the lane. Admittedly, this often also happens where
there is a striped bike lane, but the paint seems to keep the bad parking
somewhat in check. Example, also from Madison, of painted separation
between bike lane and parking:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/915muSHHc8hk1qgOe6eDlA You can see that
some cars on the left are encroaching to some extent, but it's much better.
But yeah, not sure what a good solution for tagging is.

 Harald.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:12 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

> > Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined
> > bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there
> > are a number of such facilities in my city.
> >
> > For reference, you can see an example here:
> >
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.06056159=-89.45121134=17=XByvWxyrk9quLK-noyoB5g=photo=mapbox_streets
> > Notice the bike lane sign above the speed limit sign and the cars parked
> on
> > the side. These are also accompanied with pavement markings indicating it
> > is a bicycle facility. In effect it's like a regular bike lane next to a
> > parking lane, but there's no stripe to separate the two.
>
> These types of lanes are relatively common in parts of northern
> California as well; since the physical space is still set aside for
> both parking and cycling, and the only difference is the inner line of
> paint (which is more a "stylistic" choice on part of the agency), I'm
> not convinced this needs special tagging. The tags suggested earlier
> are what I would use:
>
> > parking:lane:(right/left) = parallel
> > cycleway:(left/right) = lane
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-03 Thread Bradley White 
> Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined
> bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there
> are a number of such facilities in my city.
>
> For reference, you can see an example here:
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.06056159=-89.45121134=17=XByvWxyrk9quLK-noyoB5g=photo=mapbox_streets
> Notice the bike lane sign above the speed limit sign and the cars parked on
> the side. These are also accompanied with pavement markings indicating it
> is a bicycle facility. In effect it's like a regular bike lane next to a
> parking lane, but there's no stripe to separate the two.

These types of lanes are relatively common in parts of northern
California as well; since the physical space is still set aside for
both parking and cycling, and the only difference is the inner line of
paint (which is more a "stylistic" choice on part of the agency), I'm
not convinced this needs special tagging. The tags suggested earlier
are what I would use:

> parking:lane:(right/left) = parallel
> cycleway:(left/right) = lane

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

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-03 Thread Spencer Gardner 
The problem I see with that approach is that it doesn't distinguish between
a road with a striped bike lane next to a parking lane and a road with the
combined lane. In terms of the distribution of space on the road it might
be the same but it's different psychologically and is considered a
different facility from an engineering perspective.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:44 AM, David Chiles  wrote:

>
> Would the following tags work?
>
> parking:lane:(right/left) = parallel
> cycleway:(left/right) = lane
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Spencer Gardner 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined
>> bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there
>> are a number of such facilities in my city.
>>
>> For reference, you can see an example here:
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.06056159=-89.45121
>> 134=17=XByvWxyrk9quLK-noyoB5g=photo=mapbox_streets
>> Notice the bike lane sign above the speed limit sign and the cars parked
>> on the side. These are also accompanied with pavement markings indicating
>> it is a bicycle facility. In effect it's like a regular bike lane next to a
>> parking lane, but there's no stripe to separate the two.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

2017-02-03 Thread David Chiles 
Would the following tags work?

parking:lane:(right/left) = parallel
cycleway:(left/right) = lane

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dlane

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Spencer Gardner 
wrote:

> Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined
> bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there
> are a number of such facilities in my city.
>
> For reference, you can see an example here:
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.06056159=-89.45121134=17=
> XByvWxyrk9quLK-noyoB5g=photo=mapbox_streets
> Notice the bike lane sign above the speed limit sign and the cars parked
> on the side. These are also accompanied with pavement markings indicating
> it is a bicycle facility. In effect it's like a regular bike lane next to a
> parking lane, but there's no stripe to separate the two.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us