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
