New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Simon Still
I notice that a new layer has appeared on the OpenStreetMap site in recent weeks - CycleOSM - which gives a more modern look for a cycling map.   A lot more detail is visible  - eg you can see which side of the road a protected cycleway is situated on - but still seems to have clarity issues for London (as the distinction between a ‘cycle street’ (which appears to bee any thing tagged as a route) and a 20mph street  is a different shade of blue 

https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=14/51.4944/-0.1266/cyclosm



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

David Woolley
On 18/01/2021 13:13, Simon Still wrote:
> I notice that a new layer has appeared on the OpenStreetMap site in
> recent weeks - CycleOSM - which gives a more modern look for a cycling
> map.   A lot more detail is visible  - eg you can see which side of the
> road a protected cycleway is situated on - but still seems to have
> clarity issues for London (as the distinction between a ‘cycle street’
> (which appears to bee any thing tagged as a route) and a 20mph street
>   is a different shade of blue
>

The colour distinctions are certainly too subtle (it probably breaches
disability law).  Moreover, it doesn't understand access properly.  A
private road on hospital grounds, but also serving what used to be the
nurses' homes, but is now general social housing, is marked up as
access=destination, but is being shown as no motor vehicles allowed, but
because a cycle lane is noted, having full access to cyclists.

There is no separate access setting for cyclists, so they should also
have been treated as bicycle=destination.

Whilst, roads maintained by by the council might well have cycle use
encouraged, even for through traffic (there are footpaths connecting to
other cycle infrastructure), this road is owned by an NHS trust.

It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane landscape
is changing rather rapidly.)


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Simon Still


> On 18 Jan 2021, at 13:59, David Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 18/01/2021 13:13, Simon Still wrote:
>> I notice that a new layer has appeared on the OpenStreetMap site in recent weeks - CycleOSM - which gives a more modern look for a cycling map.   A lot more detail is visible  - eg you can see which side of the road a protected cycleway is situated on - but still seems to have clarity issues for London (as the distinction between a ‘cycle street’ (which appears to bee any thing tagged as a route) and a 20mph street   is a different shade of blue
>
> The colour distinctions are certainly too subtle (it probably breaches disability law).  Moreover, it doesn't understand access properly.  A private road on hospital grounds, but also serving what used to be the nurses' homes, but is now general social housing, is marked up as access=destination, but is being shown as no motor vehicles allowed, but because a cycle lane is noted, having full access to cyclists.
>
> There is no separate access setting for cyclists, so they should also have been treated as bicycle=destination.
>
> Whilst, roads maintained by by the council might well have cycle use encouraged, even for through traffic (there are footpaths connecting to other cycle infrastructure), this road is owned by an NHS trust.

Can you give a location for this? Not sure I understand what you mean.


> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane landscape is changing rather rapidly.)

The problem there is the woeful standard of a lot of UK cycle infrastructure.  The idea that we would paint a cycle lane on the ground that didn’t even theoretically prohibit motor vehicles from entering just dons’t make sense to anyone in Europe (looks like this is French in origin).

I think you’re getting at the distinction between dotted (advisory) and solid painted line (mandatory) cycle lanes.  In real world use there is no difference in the level of service for cycling so I can forgive them that.  

It *does* usefully show Bus lanes (which are more significant that a paint only cycle lane IMO/E) but in London again highlight the issues with a very low bar being set for what has been tagged as a ‘cycle route’ making it hard to read rather than easier.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Chris Hodges
In reply to this post by David Woolley
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:

> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Jon Pennycook-2
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Simon Still
I think the Wiki is fairly up to date on this stuff -= https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks

A painted lane (whether dotted or solid) is 

cycleway=lane


If it is separated from traffic in some way it becomes 

Cycleway=track

You can then add detail of the form of separation

Cycleway:track=kerb


There was discussion on this list a while back to try to standardise the types of protection - 


Needs moving to wiki from the google doc. 

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones

I read some research recently that both are less safe than doing nothing.  Till try to dig it out. 


On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

David Woolley
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
On 18/01/2021 16:11, Chris Hodges wrote:
> TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
> and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
> drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are

The most obvious one is that advisory lanes can be full of parked cars.
  Theoretically, at least, there could also be moving cars in them.  A
mandatory lane should only contain cycles, so should be a much better
option.

(I think it is fairly well known that mandatory lanes require traffic
regulations orders, with associated public consultations, so advisory
ones are used, as a sop to cyclists, without any real costs except those
of the paint for the lines, and for the signs.)


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

sk53.osm
In reply to this post by Jon Pennycook-2
I'm not surprised that orcas might deter people from venturing into cycle lanes, but suspect that these are not large predatory whales. Enlightenment please :-)

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 16:32, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Simon Still
Types of cycle track separator 



On 18 Jan 2021, at 17:05, SK53 <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not surprised that orcas might deter people from venturing into cycle lanes, but suspect that these are not large predatory whales. Enlightenment please :-)

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 16:32, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Jon Pennycook-2
In reply to this post by sk53.osm
Orcas, like wands, are a type of light segregation for on-road cycle lanes. They are part-way between paint and hard segregation.  I've been using cycleway=track for hard segregation.  I still think there is merit in describing how the segregation is achieved in both cases, since having collapsible wands on a 50mph road is only slightly better than paint (better visibility, drivers want to avoid getting their doors scratched), but having something like kerbs offer greater protection, and concrete blocks offer even more protection.

A number of people use cycleway=track to describe a shared use pavement (I've had a number of my shared use pavements - highway=cycleway - removed from OSM and all their detail replaced with a generic cycleway=track on the road), There's a huge difference between https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Miscellaneous S3/S4 (bicycles allowed on the pavement, affected by crossings of side roads) and a protected cycle lane/track (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_tracks T1-T4 or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks, usually better sight lines and higher possible speed), but each appear to use the same tags so a router can't tell the difference.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 17:05 SK53, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm not surprised that orcas might deter people from venturing into cycle lanes, but suspect that these are not large predatory whales. Enlightenment please :-)

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 16:32, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Jon Pennycook-2
The photo at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dtrack is what I would call a shared use pavement.  This is what I consider a cycleway=track to look like:-
(although I actually drew it on OSM as a separate cycleway because it has traffic calming and crossings that don't apply to the road).

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 17:43, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
Orcas, like wands, are a type of light segregation for on-road cycle lanes. They are part-way between paint and hard segregation.  I've been using cycleway=track for hard segregation.  I still think there is merit in describing how the segregation is achieved in both cases, since having collapsible wands on a 50mph road is only slightly better than paint (better visibility, drivers want to avoid getting their doors scratched), but having something like kerbs offer greater protection, and concrete blocks offer even more protection.

A number of people use cycleway=track to describe a shared use pavement (I've had a number of my shared use pavements - highway=cycleway - removed from OSM and all their detail replaced with a generic cycleway=track on the road), There's a huge difference between https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Miscellaneous S3/S4 (bicycles allowed on the pavement, affected by crossings of side roads) and a protected cycle lane/track (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_tracks T1-T4 or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks, usually better sight lines and higher possible speed), but each appear to use the same tags so a router can't tell the difference.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 17:05 SK53, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm not surprised that orcas might deter people from venturing into cycle lanes, but suspect that these are not large predatory whales. Enlightenment please :-)

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 16:32, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Simon Still
That tagging looks right to me


Kerb separated cycle infrastructure reduced injury odds substantially; by 40% compared to no infrastructure. Stepped tracks were even more protective, reducing injury odds by 65%, albeit with large confidence intervals due to low numbers (0.15-0.85, CI 95%). These findings are in line with Teschke et al. (2012) and in London, Li, Graham, and Liu (2017). By contrast, painted cycle lanes did not reduce injury. Mandatory painted lanes did not lead to any risk reduction and advisory lanes (which motor vehicles are legally permitted to enter) increased injury odds by over 30%.


On 18 Jan 2021, at 17:47, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:

The photo at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dtrack is what I would call a shared use pavement.  This is what I consider a cycleway=track to look like:-
(although I actually drew it on OSM as a separate cycleway because it has traffic calming and crossings that don't apply to the road).

Jon



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Chris Hodges
In reply to this post by Jon Pennycook-2
Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is presumably paint.

The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason.

I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help anyone.

Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added. That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit planned near me.

Sent from BlueMail
On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Chris Hodges
In reply to this post by David Woolley
The difference is nice in theory. Mandatory ones seem to pop up where there's more loading ("I'm not parked"/"only here for a minute") as well as being widely ignored. I wouldn't suggest even a novice routed on that basis - the general state of the road/traffic is much more important and harder to capture.

Sent from BlueMail
On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:43, David Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 18/01/2021 16:11, Chris Hodges wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are

The most obvious one is that advisory lanes can be full of parked cars.
Theoretically, at least, there could also be moving cars in them. A
mandatory lane should only contain cycles, so should be a much better
option.

(I think it is fairly well known that mandatory lanes require traffic
regulations orders, with associated public consultations, so advisory
ones are used, as a sop to cyclists, without any real costs except those
of the paint for the lines, and for the signs.)




Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Roland Swingler
In reply to this post by Chris Hodges
> Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all?

I could be wrong, but I think segregation=no is intended to be used when the cycleway is shared with pedestrians.

R

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:
Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is presumably paint.

The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason.

I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help anyone.

Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added. That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit planned near me.

Sent from BlueMail
On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Chris Hodges
That would seem reasonable - except that we'd still need to consider how
it's segregated from the motor traffic, which could be different.  I can
think of cases where it's:
pedestrians - kerb - bikes - paint - cars
and
pedestrians - paint - bikes - kerb - cars
as well as
pedestrians - paint - anyone on wheels
and the common
pedestrians+bikes - kerb - cars

On 18/01/2021 19:36, Roland Swingler wrote:

> > Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all?
>
> I could be wrong, but I think segregation=no is intended to be used
> when the cycleway is shared with pedestrians.
>
> R
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is
>     presumably paint.
>
>     The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that
>     they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked
>     (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping
>     and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are
>     orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason.
>
>     I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a
>     good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for
>     Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between
>     roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and
>     roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get
>     you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help
>     anyone.
>
>     Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip
>     separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added.
>     That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit
>     planned near me.
>
>     Sent from BlueMail <http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=16421>
>     On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>         I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is
>         separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates
>         pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or
>         kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like
>         cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle
>         lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of
>         segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and
>         probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle
>         tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the
>         protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could
>         then make a distinction between the levels of protection.
>
>         I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint
>         compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes
>         tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are
>         often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe
>         distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more
>         likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.
>
>         Jon
>
>         On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>             TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference
>             between mandatory
>             and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference
>             applies to
>             drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes
>             are in fact
>             mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely
>             ignored, it's
>             just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be
>             read going along.
>
>             (Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types
>             that should
>             be removed to benefit cyclists)
>
>             On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
>             > ...
>             > It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no
>             explicit type are
>             > mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been
>             changing a lot
>             > recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is
>             mandatory, and there
>             > are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle
>             lane
>             > landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>             >
>             >
>             > _______________________________________________
>             > Talk-GB mailing list
>             > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Talk-GB mailing list
>             [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Talk-GB mailing list
>         [hidden email]  <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Jon Pennycook
In reply to this post by Roland Swingler
Segregated=no is for off-road shared use paths. I am trying to establish a way ti describe the *type* of segregation - we have sets of tags that potentially describe cycleways (whether path or lane based) using the same tags whether they are separated from non-cyclists or separated by paint. 

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 19:38 Roland Swingler, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all?

I could be wrong, but I think segregation=no is intended to be used when the cycleway is shared with pedestrians.

R

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:
Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is presumably paint.

The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason.

I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help anyone.

Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added. That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit planned near me.

Sent from BlueMail
On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.

I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.

Jon

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.

(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
be removed to benefit cyclists)

On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> ...
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
> mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Steven Hirschorn
I was wondering what this "cycling infrastructure" would be tagged as?
That's a bike symbol placed in the main northbound lane, no advisory
or mandatory segregation? I was also wondering why the council
bothered at all, what use is painting a bike symbol in a main traffic
lane? Is it a legal requirement if a nominal bike route goes that way,
or is there any evidence that road users are more aware of cyclists if
they see a symbol painted in the road occasionally?

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tJ39xtdT9yB4qDUKxtfIdx

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 20:15, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Segregated=no is for off-road shared use paths. I am trying to establish a way ti describe the *type* of segregation - we have sets of tags that potentially describe cycleways (whether path or lane based) using the same tags whether they are separated from non-cyclists or separated by paint.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 19:38 Roland Swingler, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all?
>>
>> I could be wrong, but I think segregation=no is intended to be used when the cycleway is shared with pedestrians.
>>
>> R
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is presumably paint.
>>>
>>> The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason.
>>>
>>> I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help anyone.
>>>
>>> Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added. That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit planned near me.
>>>
>>> Sent from BlueMail
>>> On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.
>>>>
>>>> I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
>>>>> and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
>>>>> drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
>>>>> mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
>>>>> just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
>>>>> be removed to benefit cyclists)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
>>>>> > ...
>>>>> > It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
>>>>> > mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
>>>>> > recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
>>>>> > are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
>>>>> > landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Jon Pennycook
Hello Steven.

That (on-road diagram 1057) is tagged as cycleway=shared_lane. It doesn't serve any practical purpose except in the minds of councils. The router I use ignores them. 

Jon

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 01:29 Steven Hirschorn, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I was wondering what this "cycling infrastructure" would be tagged as?
That's a bike symbol placed in the main northbound lane, no advisory
or mandatory segregation? I was also wondering why the council
bothered at all, what use is painting a bike symbol in a main traffic
lane? Is it a legal requirement if a nominal bike route goes that way,
or is there any evidence that road users are more aware of cyclists if
they see a symbol painted in the road occasionally?

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tJ39xtdT9yB4qDUKxtfIdx

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 20:15, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Segregated=no is for off-road shared use paths. I am trying to establish a way ti describe the *type* of segregation - we have sets of tags that potentially describe cycleways (whether path or lane based) using the same tags whether they are separated from non-cyclists or separated by paint.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 19:38 Roland Swingler, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all?
>>
>> I could be wrong, but I think segregation=no is intended to be used when the cycleway is shared with pedestrians.
>>
>> R
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is presumably paint.
>>>
>>> The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason.
>>>
>>> I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help anyone.
>>>
>>> Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added. That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit planned near me.
>>>
>>> Sent from BlueMail
>>> On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.
>>>>
>>>> I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
>>>>> and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
>>>>> drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
>>>>> mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
>>>>> just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
>>>>> be removed to benefit cyclists)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
>>>>> > ...
>>>>> > It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
>>>>> > mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
>>>>> > recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
>>>>> > are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
>>>>> > landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM

Jon Pennycook-2
In reply to this post by Steven Hirschorn
Hello Steven.

That (on-road diagram 1057) is tagged as cycleway=shared_lane. It doesn't serve any practical purpose except in the minds of councils. The router I use ignores them. 


Jon


On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 01:29 Steven Hirschorn, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I was wondering what this "cycling infrastructure" would be tagged as?
That's a bike symbol placed in the main northbound lane, no advisory
or mandatory segregation? I was also wondering why the council
bothered at all, what use is painting a bike symbol in a main traffic
lane? Is it a legal requirement if a nominal bike route goes that way,
or is there any evidence that road users are more aware of cyclists if
they see a symbol painted in the road occasionally?

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tJ39xtdT9yB4qDUKxtfIdx

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 20:15, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Segregated=no is for off-road shared use paths. I am trying to establish a way ti describe the *type* of segregation - we have sets of tags that potentially describe cycleways (whether path or lane based) using the same tags whether they are separated from non-cyclists or separated by paint.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 19:38 Roland Swingler, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all?
>>
>> I could be wrong, but I think segregation=no is intended to be used when the cycleway is shared with pedestrians.
>>
>> R
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Chris Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Segregation =no is surely no cycle lane at all? The minimum is presumably paint.
>>>
>>> The one thing paint-separated lanes have in favour of them is that they fail more gracefully. When a hard-separated lane is blocked (parking despite a kerb/debris/builders' deliveries etc.) stopping and rejoining the road can be very tricky. There are orca-separated lanes in Bath I don't take for that reason.
>>>
>>> I've passed through West Berks but only briefly, in the dark, a good 250km into the ride. It seemed unremarkable. As for Hampshire, I've ridden there a few times and the contrast between roads that don't really go anywhere (not a care in the world) and roads that connect towns (it's not paranoia if they're out to get you) is the worst I've seen. The dumb infrastructure doesn't help anyone.
>>>
>>> Here in South glos we've just gained some with rumble strip separation, nice and wide, orcas/planters planned to be added. That could be interesting, as could the new kerb-separated bit planned near me.
>>>
>>> Sent from BlueMail
>>> On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.
>>>>
>>>> I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory
>>>>> and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map.  The difference applies to
>>>>> drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact
>>>>> mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's
>>>>> just clutter on the display.  At least it's unlikely to be read going along.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should
>>>>> be removed to benefit cyclists)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
>>>>> > ...
>>>>> > It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are
>>>>> > mandatory ones.  (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot
>>>>> > recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there
>>>>> > are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane
>>>>> > landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> > [hidden email]
>>>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
12