On 21/05/12 19:10, Rob Nickerson wrote: > We use "opposite" to indicate that cycles can travel against the flow of > traffic on a one-way street, but on a two-way street you would use > cycleway:right=lane to signify that there is a cycle lane in the > opposite direction to how the road is drawn in OSM.
If you're looking for a more common term, they're often referred to as "contra-flow cycle lanes". They're relatively important to distinguish, and need special infrastructure at the ends, so it's not as silly as it sounds to make this distinction. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/browniebear/3419618104/ https://secure.flickr.com/photos/browniebear/3419638932/ Other terminology: https://www.devon.gov.uk/index/transport/traffic/traffic_management/cycle_lane_road_markings.htm > 2. Left, Right, Forward, Backward. > I expect many people find these hard to understand. What if the > cyclelane is not on the far left/right but is between traffic lanes > (e.g. for straight on when you have a left turn lane for vehicles). Pedal cycles are vehicles. That's a cycleway[:*]=lane too, though it might deserve a note. > 3. My thoughts > My current thinking (based on looking at example cycleways in the UK and > Netherlands), is that we should consider splitting out the 2 cases > (English: "lanes" and "tracks"; Dutch "Fietsstrook" and "Fietspad"). By > doing this we make have tags with clear purpose. For example: [proposal snipped]. No. This is not the place to make tagging proposals, and what we have right now actually suffices, even if it's a bit weird. Just tag to the highest level of provision on, or alongside the road, or use separate ways for segregated tracks, allowing roads with both lanes and tracks to be mapped. Easy. > 4. Discussion. > > I appreciate that this is a radical change from the current system. > However as adoption of the current system is still _relatively_ low (in > terms of renderers and routing software), IF we are to address this, > then now is the best time. It's been in the current state for over three years with precisely no indication from the renderer writers that they're likely to implement it. Why do you think your scheme is likely to gain any more traction than previous efforts? Let's concentrate on making the GB guidelines useful. Map common concepts and terms used by road-user-group-X to OSM concepts; sprinkle with pretty pictures; done. If you're going down the rabbit hole of deciding that an existing scheme is inadequate and therefore needs reinventing, you'll be wasting your time. > p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map if > drawn as a separate highway=cycleway (despite any challenges the > renderers and routers currently have with this) - it just makes things a > lot easier!! Yep, agreed; it's in keeping with recent moves for separately mapped pavements too. -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
