Proposed features/cycleway=soft lane
For an ongoing discussion on this proposal please see talk:Proposed_features/cycleway=soft_lane
|Definition:||A cycleway=soft_lane is a special part of a roadway usually only marked by a dashed line but usually also with bicycle symbol markings regularly spaced on it along the direction of traffel. Use may be compulsory for cyclist but it is not exculsive to them. However, motorist may only use them occasionally and should stay off normaly.|
|Rendered as:||a dashed line in blue off to one or both sides of a road (for example)|
- 1 Description
- 2 Rationale
- 3 Related Topics
- 3.1 Systematical conclusion
- 3.2 Illustration of the distinction from other cycling facilities
- 3.3 Legal difference per country
- 4 Notes
- 5 Voting
- 6 Post-Vote
(21.9.14) A cycleway=soft_lane is a special part of a roadway usually only marked by a dashed line but usually also with bicycle symbol markings regularly spaced on it along the direction of travel. The use may be compulsory or facultative for cyclists. It is not exculsive to them, but motorists may only use them occasionally and should keep off normaly.
cycleway=soft_lane (softly segregating cycle lane) is to be used to discribe a cycleway that is a special part of the roadway usually only marked by a dashed line but usually also with bicycle symbol markings regularly spaced along the direction of travel. The color of the lane's surface may vary and shouldn't be a criterion. If the cycleway is marked by pictograms within a lane also used by motor traffic or if there is a colored suface with or without a dashed limit, but that design does not implicate lagal obligations, for example a motorist may drive on it like on a normal lane, consider tagging cycleway=shared_lane (see below). The use of the "soft_lane" may be compulsory for cyclists but the "soft_lane" is not exculsive for them. If the use is exclusive or if there is only one type of cycle lane in your country, consider tagging cycleway=lane. Normaly, exlusive cycle lanes are marked with a solid line instead of or in addidtion to the dashed line (see below). In addition, motorists may only use the "soft_lane" occasionally and should stay off normaly. Cyclists have priority and should not be endangered. Motorists may drive on a "soft_lane" e.g. to hold, turn, or avoid oncomming traffic. Compulsory use or holding/parkings rules however are up to local legislation.
A "soft_lane" might be called UK:advisary cyclelane, DE:Schutzstreifen, A:Mehrzweckstreifen, NL:fietsstrook met onderbroken streep, F:bande cyclable conseillée et réservée, CZ:cyklistický jízdní pruh.
- is marked by a dasehd line only,
- usually has bicycle symbols markings,
- is still a (legal) part of the (main/car) lane,
- may be mandatory/compulsory for cyclist,
- is not exclusive for cyclist,
- may only be used be motorized vehicles if neccesary.
suggestion for a better definition or other additions are welcome
- (12.9.14) A cycleway=soft_lane is a cycle lanes that are separeted from the main lane only by a dashed line.
- (13.9.14) A cycleway=soft_lane is a special part on the carriageway marked by dashed line and usually with a bicycle symbol markings regularly spaced along the direction of traffel. It is usually compulsory for cyclist and may only occasionally be used by motorist.
- (15.9.14) A cycleway=soft_lane is a special part of a roadway usually marked by a dashed line and with bicycle symbol markings regularly spaced on it along the direction of traffel. Use may be compulsory due to local laws but it is not exculsive for cyclist. However, motorist may only use them occasionally and should stay off normaly.
The traffic rules of some countries may allow two (or more) types of cycle lanes, for example one with strict separation (e.g. cyclists have to keep there and motorists have to keep off) and one with soft separation (e.g. for special desires both bicyle and motor traffic mutually may use each other's lane). Therefore, a special tag for the softly segregated lanes is neede to distinguish them from the others ones.
At the moment, the only available tags are cycleway=lane for cycle lanes that have seperating effects on cyclist from cars and cycleway=shared_lane (in use but the not yet approved) for on road/lane cycle markings with shared use by cars and other motorist.
Reason for introcuing this new value is a dispute, in the German comunity at least, where to put a specific kind of cycling infrasturcture called "Schutzstreifen", witch seperates cyclists from motorists, but is still a legeal part of the lane, and may be used by motorist to avoid oncomming traffic (trucks, wide cars) or to hold (but not park).
That kind of cycle lane is rarely recognized to be a real cycle lane, which prevents mappers to tag it with cycleway=lane and it has been occasionally proclaimed to be mapped as cycleway=shared_lane since end of 2012 because it fits the definition given here for a cycleway=shared_lane .
After reading different wiki-pages , forum post , talks to other mappers  and some googling , it becomes clear that up to now this has been discussed only by the German comunity.
Still, the urge to distinguish can also be found in the introduction of the Key:mandatory.
A subtag could be used to distiungish between "normal" cycle lanes and "softly segredating cycle lanes", with out effecting existing routing or rendering software. However subtags for refining a main tag are not very commen in OSM. Most of the time there is a main value and - at the same level- multiple revining value. For example highway=road and highway=motorway/trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. Also, OSM should provide a simple and a complex (more detailed) solution. In addition a subkey would definitively create the demand for more specialized tags like for example lane=strict_lane/soft_lane or exclusive=yes/no/never, depending on the kind of subkey. In the case of lane=* this would interfear with existing tagging a lot more than introducing a new main value if the demand eraises.
The name for the tag should be unambiguous, not been used and idealy discribe what the cycle lane looks like but not how it has to be used by cyclists or motorists.
Following values have been considered
|strip or stripe||+ Used in German (Radfahrstreifen,Schutzstreifen,) and Dutch (fietsstrook, fietssuggestiestrook) language. - Might be confusing for native english speakers.|
|suggestive_lane||- The Netherlands have both, the "fietssuggestiestrook" and a compulsory but not exclusive cycle lane.|
|advisory_lane||+ Used in the British language in contrast to mandatory lane. + Close translation of the French term bande cyclable conseillée.
- But the usage for cyclists can be semi-compulsory (e.g. Germany) or even compulsory (Netherlands).
|protecting_lane||+ Close translation of Schutzstreifen. - Sounds wierd. Might be confusing for native English speakers. - The cycle lane doesn't really protect cyclists.|
|protected_lane||- Used in the British (English) language to describe cycle lanes separated by a physical barrier for the main lane|
|shared_lane||- Differs from the established meaning of the term in countries, where it is official: Widly used to discribe shared use of the main (car) lane by cyclists. - No clear description of the use of this kind of cycle lanes.|
|share_lane||- Similarity with share_busway. - Too similar to shared_lane. Danger of typos. - No clear description of the use of this kind of cycle lanes.|
|soft_lane||+ Stands for softly segregating cycle lane. The phrase is not yet used, + but soft separation or soft segregation is an established term. + It describes that there is a border towards car lanes, which may be passed. - In established terminology, also strict cycle lanes are subsumed to "soft separation", in contrast to "hard separation" by cycletracks on the curbe or behind a vegetation strip.|
|If someone has an idea for a better suited name, please leave your comment on the discussion page|
Please add more pictures. For example "advisary cycle lanes" (UK)
On oneway streets
Using a new main value like cycleway=soft_lane for cycle lanes opposite to a oneway would create the need for a cycleway=opposite_soft_lane, too. However, this would be a very unlikely scenario, since it would mean that in case of e.g. an oncoming larger trucks, cyclists had no where to go. But such a scenario can not definitifly be denied (Not sure if this is such a case). The question is, whether cycleway=opposite_lane would have similar implications, when used in a "soft_lane" case.
Also a since cycleway=opposite should be expressed as oneway:bicycle=no, this could be adopted to any cycleway=opposite_* by oneway:bicycle=no + cycleway=*. For anymore details descriptions of a cycleway=* the keys *:right/left=* and/or *:oneway=* have to be used already and without cycleway=soft_lane.
Consequences for Renderers
Disclaimer: This only shows a limited view of rendering possibilities. However renderers should check their code for problems/conflicts
Renderers using a complex rendering approach have to add cycleway=soft_lane to their list of tags, because ways currently tagged as cycleway=lane or cycleway=shared_lane would not be renderd after renaming them.
While the rendering style is up to the renderer of course, cycleway=soft_lane could be rendered as a solid, dashed, or dotted line in (for example) blue off to one or both sides to the road, similar to the way it is done by opencyclemap.
Consequences for Routers
Disclaimer: This only shows a limited view of routing possibilities. However routers should check their code for problems/conflicts
Router using a simple (yes/no) routing approche shouldn't be affected by the introduction of this value.
|Right now||This Proposal||amendment1||amendment2|
Illustration of the distinction from other cycling facilities
cycleway=lane oder cycleway=strict_lane
Coexistence of softly segregating lanes and integrative cycling facilities
Legal difference per country
Trying to list the legal difference per country could clear up what's actually meant with this tag.
Countries with at least two types of cycle lanes
– always first the strict one, then the soft one –
- United Kingdom: mandatory cycle lane vs. advisory ~ = non mandatory cycle lane
- fietsstrook met doorgetrokken streep ("with continuous line", reserved and compulsory)
- fietsstrook met onderbroken streep ("with dashed line", compulsory but not reserved)
- fietssuggestiestrook (marked only by one dashed line or red colour, no legal status, function similar to shared lane markings, but differently from those rather desintegrating than integrating)
- Belgium (* in Brussels):
- fietspad = piste cyclable (no distinction between cycle track and cycle lane, compulsory, dashed lines on both sides if there is no curbe)
- fietssuggestiestrook = bande cyclable suggérée (like in NL no legal status, function similar to shared lane markings, but differently from those rather desintegrating than integrating)
- France (*): bande cyclable obligatoire vs. bande cyclable conseillée
- Germany: Radfahrstreifen vs. Schutzstreifen
- Czech Republic (*): vyhrazený (cyklistický) jízdní pruh vs. cyklistický jízdní pruh ("reserved ~ vs. simple cycle lane")
- Austria : Radfahrstreifen vs. Mehrzweckstreifen
Countries with (*) have shared lane markings, in addition.
Countries without multiple types of cycle lanes
- Poland - all cycle lanes all mandatory. Dashed/solid lines have the same meaning as for any other lane type. All are called "pas rowerowy" without subcategories.
The traffic sign 237 "cycleway" is used to define a compulsory use of an road adjacent cycleway, either a lane or a separate track. When used on cycle lanes (Radfahrstreifen), these are compulsory to use and exclusive for cyclists. Cycle lanes can also be painted red for better visibility but that is not common in Germany. Motor vehicles must not go, hold or park on them. They may cross them to get to a driveway or parking space but must yield to cyclists when doing so. When used on a separate track, it usually defines an obligatory cycleway distant from a sidewalk. If the track is adjacent to a footway, it is usually marked with Sign 241 "segregated foot- and cycleway" (getrennter Geh- und Radweg). Due to many changes to the bicycle specific traffic laws and regulations over the last years, the use and signage of cycleways vary from town to town, sometimes even with in the same town. It is quite common for a "segregated cycle- and footway" to be marked only with sign 237 (cycleway) or for "shared foot- and cycleways" to be marked with sign 237 instead of with sign 240 (shared foot- and cycleway). The latter mostly outside of a town, on ways next to a rural roads.
- If the traffic sign is missing, but the lane is marked by bicycle pictograms without blue round background, the use of the lane is voluntary. Everything else is the same. This is also not common in Germany
- If any bicycle symbol or red coloring is missing, that lane is not a cycle lane but a shoulder. Till 1997, cyclists had to go on these "Seitenstreifen". Since 1997, use is only compulsory outside of a town.
If a "cycleway" is marked with a dashed division line and bicycle symbols it is a "Schutzstreifen" (protective lane). Both motor vehicles and bicycles are allowed to use each other's space for special purposes such as encounters, overtaking and turns. Otherwise they have to keep on their side of the dashed line, motor vehicles because the protective lane is priorized for cycling, bicycles due to the principle of using the rightmost section of the carriageway ("Rechtsfahrgebot").
The signs above denote a cycleway (fietspad/...). It is used for both: separate tracks and dedicated lanes. When used on a lane, the room reserved for cyclists is shown by two parallel dashed lines (you have to cycle between those lines). Cyclists have right-of-way on cycle lanes, cars are not supposed to drive on cycle lanes, and it's completely forbidden for cars to park or stop on a cycle lane. When cars aren't allowed to cross the cyclelane, there's a full white line drawn next to the cycle lane (note that crossing the white line is still allowed when parking, but not when driving in the normal traffic). As a consequence, the full white line next to a cycle way is omitted at every crossing (though the dashed lines often continue), and the full white line is also omitted on roads that are rather narrow (to allow wide vehicles to cross each other, or to allow overtaking other vehicles).
Next to the cycle lanes, there are also cycle suggestion lanes (fietssuggestiestroken/...). Those are marked with a different colour on the ground, a dashed line, some bicycle symbols, or a combination of those. But suggestion lanes don't have one of the signs listed above. On the cycle suggestion lanes, cyclists don't have special rights, cars are supposed to drive on those suggestion lanes (not only when crossing or overtaking), and cars are allowed to park on those suggestion lanes (when no other rule forbids parking of course). Cyclists are not obligated to ride on those suggestion lanes. This is currently tagged as cycleway=shared_lane (which follows the definition of "shared lane", as the marking is only suggestive, and both parties are supposed to keep right as if there was no marking).
Two types of cycle lanes:
When using this proposal, the cycle lane in the second picture will be tagged as cycleway=soft_lane, while the cycleway in the first picture will stay cyleway=lane (given they both have a cycleway traffic sign listed above).
Poland has a single type of mandatory bicycle lane. Dashed/solid lines have the same meaning as for any other lane type. All are called "pas rowerowy" without subcategories.
Vehicles (except bicycles) may not stop on bicycle lane.
When using this proposal, it would be confusing how segments with dashed lines should be fixed, as part of soft_lane definition fits and part not. Moreover, it is rare to consider this a notable difference.
- A cycleway=soft_lane is a special part of a roadway usually marked by a dashed line (yes)
- and with bicycle symbol markings regularly spaced on it along the direction of travel. (yes)
- Use may be compulsory due to local laws (no, it is always mandatory due to national traffic laws)
- but it (the lane) is not exclusive for cyclist. However, a motorist may only use it occasionally and should stay off normaly. (I am checking this part)
- U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition: Chapter 9C. Markings, last section
- Thunder Bay (Ontario)]: Informations for motorists and cylists on shared lanes and bike lanes
- http://www.rhein-erft-kreis.de/stepone/data/downloads/46/86/00/standardsradverkehr.pdf see p.19
- Dutch RVV, §1 – alphabetical list of terms
- Keep in mind, shared lane and suggestion lane never are synonymous: A shared lane is a general lane comprising a pictogram corridor or a suggestion lane. A suggestion lane is a suggested (for cycling) part of a general lane.
- http://rowerowalodz.pl/aktualnosci/917-pas-ruchu-czy-droga-dla-rowerow http://www.miastadlarowerow.pl/index_know_how.php?dzial=2&kat=8&art=4
- Prawo o ruchu drogowym. Art. 49
- I approve this proposal., and I'd like an introduction of cycleway=strict_lane (simply as the counterpart) and a confirmation of cycleway=shared_lane (already used in spite of a missing admission process, see Proposed features/shared lane), at the same time.--Ulamm (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. as this will break data consumers expecting cycleway=lane. It should be done as subtags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Clearly better than edit-wars between (the imo wrong, since it's something else) =lane and (the imo not-so wrong, since they don't exist here) =shared_lane… So no, data consumers won't expect cycleway=lane for this or don't care anyway ;-) --rayquaza (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I see no reason to introduce another tag since cycle lanes that are exclusively for cyclists can be put under cycleway=track. Whether it is a curb or painted line it really doesnt matter. If it does give it a subtag, like divider=curb, or painted_line or whatever. Or use cycleway=lane & lane=solid. If it is clearly separated from the main road, draw it as separate way, highway=cycleway.--ligfietser (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The same way I see no reason to introduce subtags... and a cycleway=track is a separated by a solid divider that can't be crossed by a vehicle, not a painted lane --redrat (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- "cycle lanes that are exclusively for cyclists can be put under cycleway=track", no, no, no, nonono. cycleway=track is equivalent of separate highway=cycleway, not (yet) mapped as a separate way. cycleway=track should never, ever be used for lanes (excepted ones that are separated by some barrier fcompletely blocking passage of vehicles from other parts of the road). Mateusz Konieczny (talk)
- Belgian traffic laws do not distinguish cycletracks and cycle lanes – that's no reason to deny the practical and juridical differences in other countries.
- Some countries have only one kind of cycle lanes – that's no reason to deny the important differences in other counties.--Ulamm (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal., for the same reason as Mateusz Konieczny. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Use subtag lane=… JB (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --Nadjita (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC) The current cycleway=lane is already what you want to achieve with soft_lane. To mark it exclusive for bicycles use bicycle=official since cycleway=lane is only bicycle=designated. This tagging will only add more confusion to the broken bicycle-tagging of OSM.
- I approve this proposal. --Ipofanes (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC) if data consumers are not prepared for the tag, they will not render it, which would be closer to the truth than treating it as a faux cycleway=lane.
- I approve this proposal. This is better than a subtag lane=*, because there are already too many tags on highway features. It's obvious that cycleway=opposite_soft_lane is also needed (the Youtube example is true), and it's a pity that this proposal does not make a clear statement on that. --Fkv (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have omitted a statement on cycleway=opposite_soft_lane, because it is not clear if the cycleway=opposite_* should remain in use or if it is discourage in favor of oneway:bicycle=no. However I see no proplem in introducing cycleway=opposite_soft_lane if desired and if this proposal gets approved. --Hubert87 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal.--geozeisig (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC) I see the difference but it is not so relevant to make a new tag.
- I approve this proposal. --Jojo4u (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) We need a tagging for this and this is no cycleway=lane for me, just some buffer.
- I oppose this proposal. --Noordfiets (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Overly complicating a problem that does not exist. As for the 'fietssuggestiestrook': there is no need to tag it at all. It is merely a reminder for other users that there are cyclists on the road. It's just a safety measure and has no legal meaning whatsoever. The reason cyclist have to use it is based on the rule that they have to use the farmost right side of the road.
- I approve this proposal. --Hubert87 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Forgot to vote on my own proposal ;P. I prefere a new main value over subtags, because subtags don't solve the issue where to place the soft_lane (lane=soft_lane or shared_lane=soft_lane).
- I oppose this proposal. The difference is too small for a separate tag in my opinion. A subtag should be sufficient, though I'm not in favour of the "lane"-subtag. --Imagic (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
COUNT: Total votes = 15
REASONS: Notable reasons for rejecting this proposale are "Breaking data consumers expectance" and "Use as a subkey".