Hi all,
Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715
https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254&lon=-0.0335&zoom=17
You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to me,
it's full of 45-degree bends". And based o
Hi Richard
I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road itself.
I don't see the namespacing as an issue here.
The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be
tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the road
by
Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem:
cycleway:left=track
cycleway:left:width=3
cycleway:left:surface=asphalt
...
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 12:01 Tobias Zwick, wrote:
> Hi Richard
>
> I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road
> itself. I don't see the
Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :
> Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem:
> cycleway:left=track
> cycleway:left:width=3
> cycleway:left:surface=asphalt
> ...
>
if the cycleway is a track it can become a problem, because tracks tend to
have different
> This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry.
> [...] Breaking geometry to enable tagging is bad in itself, misleading on
> renderings, and unsurprisingly confuses the heck out of routers.
Indeed. Either as cycleway=track/lane on car road (all along) or as a
separate way
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 16:14 althio, wrote:
> Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied
> with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1].
>
I do not see any problem with that. I have been including roads with
cycleway=lane routinely in bicycle routes.
>
>
> ... or ...
Thanks everyone for the comments!
althio wrote:
> My preference would be to keep the geometry, map it as a continuous
> highway=cycleway.
> For the bits without divider, I don't like protected=no however.
> I would go with no additional tagging, and more geometry (as you said:
> crossings and junc
