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
