Talk:Proposed features/cycleway=soft lane

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sub tag?

My concern with this tag is that you will also need a "hard_lane" tag for cycle lanes marked with a solid line (UK) or equivalent in other countries. Current mapping techniques are not sufficient to assume all cycleway=lane ways are of the solid line type. Have you considered a sub tag instead. For example cycleway=lane + lane_type=soft (or similar)? --RobJN (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right in the way that "soft_lane" needs a counterpart "hard_lane".>>>late correction: "strict_lane" ((Ulamm (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)))
But I don't agree to do this with subtags. For road-attached cycleway tags subtags are awful.
We ought to keep it similar to "highway=road / highway=primary … highway=residential": The general tag shall be allowed, but if needed, more specialized tags shall be available.
Another advantage of this solution is that it gives time to upgrade existing mappings.--Ulamm (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That is something I have considerd. But I came to the conclusion that subtags are not the way to go here. "cycleway=lane" might be a collection of differntly looking cycle lanes at the moment. However I think that, if the need to differentiate more types of cycle lanes arises (for example suggestive lanes in the Netherlands, which is not an issue right now), they should get a separet proposal like this one. That is also the reason why I have createt this proposal, since using a subkey wouldn't affect rendering and routing very much, so introducing it wouldn't be an issue and there is no strong reason for a proposal.
In the end "cycleway=lane" could be used only for mandatory cycle lanes or equivalent. If not, a new value "hard_lane"/"strict_lane" can still be introduced--Hubert87 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
My first impression about this proposal was also about creating a sub-tag. But your rational says "That kind of cycle lane is rarely recognized to be a real cycle lane". This is a very important point and it should be more clear in your description header text where you just explain "separated by a dashed line". This feature could be figured out differently in other countries (if any). It could be a special colour or whatever. The most important thing about this feature is not that it is a "dashed line" but that the lane is not a real cycle lane and can be shared with motorized vehicles. Improve your header text for non-german readers who don't know this particular feature. Good luck for your proposal. --Pieren (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I think I know what you're aiming at. If I understand you correctly, you are looking for a definiton along something like "A cyclelane that motorized vehicles may only use it necessary" or "A cycleway that is marked on the traffel lane and separetes motorized traffic from bicycles but may be used/driven on if necessary" which discribes what makes a soft_lane special? My concern is that I didn't want to touch the NL:fietssuggestiestrook which is currently tagged as cycleway=shared_lane.--Hubert87 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
IMHO subtag is better - it will not break existing data consumers, moreover this difference is quite subtle (at least in Poland) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. It would also make it easier for people to learn how to tag cycleways without having to learn more about them, i.e. "Tag a lane as cycleway=lane. If you would like to specify the type of lane, use cycleway:lane=*/lane=* with such and such values. --Jgpacker (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have with a subtag is, that 1. it doesn't clear up, where to put the "soft_lane" (lane=soft_lane or shared_lane=soft_lane). 2. It would create the need for far more subtags like strict_lane, sugestive_lane. 3. Using that logic tags like share_busway would need to be changed into a shared_lane=* subtag. --Hubert87 (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A solution would be to have a more generic subtag. Maybe something like cycleway:lane_type=soft_lane/strict_lane/others --Jgpacker (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In UK and Germany the differences are not subtle, see the pictures of Bremen and the British complaint on the conversion of a mandatory lane to a non-mandatory one. In Germany, the installation of a strict cycle lane typically implicates a complete redesign of a street. A soft cycle lane is nothing but some more white lines. The practical difference in usage is wider than the legal one.--Ulamm (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The more tags have to be written to describe one feature, the less mappers are encouraged to differential and detailed mapping.
Still, cycle lanes are rendered so rarely, that it is a good time to establish new main keys.--Ulamm (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If the four more specific tags are confirmed as a package, old "cycleway=lane"-tags become rough but not wrong.--Ulamm (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


@Pieren the Vienna convention calls such cycle lanes, well "cycle lanes", and given the wide range of subtely different governing regulations, I would be careful with calling them "real" or "not real" cycle lanes. For example here motorized vehicles are allowed to use them if they do not hinder bicycle traffic (so bicycle have a clear right of way on them) and just as with "real" lanes bicycles are allowed to pass on the right and halting on them is a clear no-no for motorized vehicles. So are these "real" lanes or not? @Huber87 as a tendency I would oppose a seperate tag value and would suggesting rethinking if we can't cover this with an additional attribute, particularly given that "soft" probably implies the wrong thing in the end (the only "hard" lanes IMHO are such with a hard physical seperation). SimonPoole (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In Pierrens defence, he just quoted me. I choose "real" to explain how this cycle lanes feel to german cyclist (and mappers) and not what they are technically. From a quick read here, a "Mehrzweckstreifen" is essentially the same as a "Schutzstreifen", they are even marked the same. In Germany they are still part of the lane and don't form a new one, which I don't know for sure in Austria. The main problem seems to be, that it is not clear were to place thoose kind of cycle lanes. Either as cycleway=lane since they are (technically) "cycle lanes" or as cycleway=shared_lane since they are still part of the same lane? That is the reason why i have decided to create a new value instead of using a subkey. Also could you explain to me, what you accosiate with "soft" in "soft_lane". For me it is/was a blank value, which is why I choose it.--Hubert87 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Searching the internet I've found a passage of the Austrian traffic law before the recent actualization. According to that text, in Austria the "normal" cycle lane (Radfahrstreifen) is the strict one and almost the same as in Germany. The softly separating facility is called Mehrzweckstreifen ("multi use lane"), but it is similar to the German Schutzstreifen and no shared lane:
Citation: Stand BGBl. I Nr. 152/2006.
7. Radfahrstreifen: ein für den Fahrradverkehr bestimmter und besonders gekennzeichneter Teil der Fahrbahn, wobei der Verlauf durch wiederholte Markierung mit Fahrradsymbolen und das Ende durch die Schriftzeichenmarkierung "Ende" angezeigt wird;
7a. Mehrzweckstreifen: ein Radfahrstreifen oder ein Abschnitt eines Radfahrstreifens, der unter besonderer Rücksichtnahme auf die Radfahrer von anderen Fahrzeugen befahren werden darf, wenn für diese der links an den Mehrzweckstreifen angrenzende Fahrstreifen nicht breit genug ist oder wenn das Befahren durch Richtungspfeile auf der Fahrbahn für das Einordnen zur Weiterfahrt angeordnet ist.
The Czechs might have a problem with the introduction of a new tag for the soft separation and use of cycle lane only for the strict one: In their traffic law the "ordinary" cycle lane is separating softly and the strict one is called reserved cycle lane.--Ulamm (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote, i would associate "hard" with physical seperation and "soft" with none, what we are really discussing is exclusive vs. non-exclusive use and that just in a legal sense, or better a near continuum between exclusive and and non-sxclusive. SimonPoole (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. @Ulamm: So the at least for Austria a "Mehrzweckstreifen" is a new lane, which is next to the "normal" lane. That would be ok for a sub tag of cycleway=lane. @SimonPoole: Differentiating between exclusive and not exclusive is not the point of my proposal. That would be farly easy with (cycleway:access=no/yes + cycleway:bicycle=yes). The point is, that at least in Germany a "Schutzstreifen" is part of the normal lane, which would make it a (sub tag of) "cycleway=shared_lane". Yet at the same time it is still a cyclelane (technically speaking) which makes it a (sub tag of) cycleway=lane. I might need to point that out bettter on the front page. Also "hard" as in "hard_lane" for a physical separation doesn't need to be introduced. We have cycleway=track the discribe that. However if "soft" triggers am assosiation with "hard", the name of this key is of course still up for discussion. --Hubert87 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As I have understood the rules, German Schutzstreifen is not less separating than Austrian Mehrzweckstreifen. Both are softly segregating bicycle lanes. And none of them is integrative (which is the principle of US & CA shared lanes and Czech pictogram corridors).
And both Austrian and German Radfahrstreifen are strict (strictly segregating) but not hard separations.
Hard separation is a cycletrack above the curbe.--Ulamm (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Hubert87 I believe I do understand your proposal correctly: to provide a tagging for a cycle lane with an undefined level of exclusivity, aka which may be legally used by other vehicles in some form depending on local legeslation. I suspect everybody would support some indication of that, it is just an argument on how. Note that German law does -not- claim that "Schutzstrefen" are part of another lane, just of the more general driving surface, the same as any other lane, wit: "g) wird am rechten Fahrbahnrand ein schutzstreifen für Radfahrer so markiert, ..." --SimonPoole (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I obviously failed to make my point. Whether the "soft_lane" is exclusive, compulsory or non of both, isn't the point I am trying to make. I want to distuingish "soft_lane" form "lane" or "shared_lane" because it fits both definitions, at least to some degree. Also "soft_lane" cycle lanes do look different. This also the reason why I didn't go with a subkey. I will try and make that point more clear. Thanks for the input. Keep it up. --Hubert87 (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Simon, you are right. Just the regulation in the German VWV (execution rule) that the rest of the carriageway has to be wide enough for the encounter of two ordinary passenger cars (PKW) shows that the mutual use of each other's space is allowed for special indications, but shan't happen too often. That's no lane-in-lane.--Ulamm (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure about that. The StVO says :"Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren." (8 Markierungen,Rd.Nr 22, Zeichen 340) "Who drives a vehilce may cross division lines marked on the lane only if needed"--Hubert87 (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that the STVO uses "Fahrbahn" for the complete driving area of a road and "Fahrstreifen" for lanes, see in any case it is probably not that relevant because as already said, I don't beleive that the deciding difference is is the lane is a sub-lane of another one, but if there is exclusive use or not. SimonPoole (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you.--Ulamm (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
+1. I was mistaken. --Hubert87 (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Subtag? (2)

On the keyword "sub-tag": Describing parts of a road with tags of the carriageway becomes quite complicated, if the definition of a part (lane) affords sub-tags. This was the rationale to suggest cycleway=soft_lane instead of things like "cycleway=lane + cycleway:mandatory=no". Remember, normally cycleway=* has to be specified with *=right, *=left, or *=both, in addition, as there can be different cycling facilities for one direction and the opposite.(See the example from a suburb of Prague in the thread below.)--Ulamm (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If a sub tag is the most popular solution, I could live with that. However I think it should stay easy for beginners, yet with a subkey or additional tag it gets complicated really fast

Description main key (new values) sub keys access keys
Strict segregation cycleway=lane
or better
cycleway=lane cycleway=both
cycleway=lane cycleway=both
Soft segregation cycleway=soft_lane
or better
Soft segregation for one direction cycleway:right=soft_lane cycleway:right=lane
Two different types of segregation cycleway:right=soft_lane
Two different types, two specialized main keys cycleway:right=soft_lane
Soft segregation and integration in one road cycleway:right=soft_lane
cycleway=both cycleway:right=lane

--Hubert87 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The table was too wide to read. And the number of tags can be reduced even more, but only by the use of soft_lane and perhaps strict_lane as values of the main key.--Ulamm (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Attention: This table proposes a new key exclusive=* in the same meaning that has been intended for key mandatory=* with ist proposal in June 2014. Propably, exclusive is better self explaining for the majority of mappers, which are no native speakers of English. But that is a thread for Talk:Key:mandatory. I shan't open that thread, as expressive main keys are more useful.
  • cycleway=both above/in front of cycleway:right=* + cycleway:left=* seems a bit overtagged.--Ulamm (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

dashed lane

It needs a better definition than "A cycle lane that is separated from the main lane by a dashed line", maybe "cycle lane that is not compulsory and may be used by cars"? In Poland compulsory cycle lane may be either dashed or not Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. In Germany both types of cycleways/cycle lanes are also compulsory (due to the "keep right law"). Yet, I didn't want to make that a criteria at first, since this doesn't have to be that way in different countries. Could you explain the main differences between cycle lanes with dashed or solid lines, please? --Hubert87 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Amendment: in some countries (also in Germany) there are two types of dashed lines:
  • The ordinary one consists of long narrow stripes with long gaps in between. It is used for limits of lanes where they are allowed to be passed, including the limits of protection lanes for bicycyles.
  • The stronger one is called block marking and consists of broad stripes with short gaps in between. It is used to mark limits of traffic areas with special functions. It as also used where a cycle lane is crossed by a general lane. Sometimes it is also used to mark the limits of a cycle lane on all its way.--Ulamm (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

exculsive cycle lanes

Does anybody know, if there is a country where a cycle lane marked by a dashed line is exclusive to cyclist and may not be used motorized vehicles (exept maybe mopeds)? --Hubert87 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


I'm missing the opposite* variations of cycle lanes for cycling against oneway directions. At the moment there is mainly opposite_lane and opposite (sign only, no lane marked) but in line with your more detailed tags there should be also at least opposite_soft_lane. Frankly I don't know any opposite_strict_lanes here in Vienna, but I assume they exist somewhere in other cities, so they should be defined too. BearT (talk)

The question is, if somewhere softly segregating opposite lanes have been installed anywhere. I have no experience with any. Either the authorities decide that the senses have to be segregated. Then they install a strictly segregating opposite lane or a contra-flow cycle track. Or they decide for integration, allowing cycle traffic against the sense of motor traffic in the space used by the cars, which is very common in the 30-km/h-zones fo several European countries.--Ulamm (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a good question. My first notion would be against it, however it would only be consistent. What about the more complicated form of tagging that case with oneway:bicycle=no + cycleway:left/right=soft_lane (maybe + cycleway:left/right:oneway=-1) for righthand/lefthand road traffic? oneway:bicycle=no would be tagged on a highway=road for cycleways going opposite to the oneway. Similar to the situation in which bicycle=use_sidepath is not tagged for compulsory cycleways tagged only on the highway=road. In both cases the cyclist have to be allowed on the highway=road for routing reasons. I hope I have expressed my self in a comprehensible way.--Hubert87 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't care if cycleways on streets are tagged as *_lane or with your more complicated scheme, but I really think *all* possibilities of lanes should be tagged with one scheme. I don't care which of these two we use, but if we have something like soft_lane defined only in direction of car traffic I don't think that would make it easier for mappers and data users, since they would anyway need to parse both schemes to get all cycling related data. --BearT (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As I've written I'm from Vienna and a lot of opposite_lane tags would actually fit in the opposite_soft_lane category, since they are marked with a dashed line and are, for me as a cyclist, not distinguishable from soft lanes in the direction of the car traffic. So for me as a cyclist they both look like "Mehrzweckstreifen". Defining soft lanes only in one direction would anyway seem odd to me in general, but since they are used as opposite_soft_lane in Vienna I really think they are missing. --BearT (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
O.k. then we might have a package of five or six new tags:
If the renderers have to be updated in order to understand new tags, it may be less work to do all innovations on the same theme, than to do them step by step. This way it also will be easier to develop an appropriate range of signatures (colour scale etc.).--Ulamm (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe cycleway=opposite_* should be deprecated, since it is only used for oneway streets. On normal roads one would just use for example cycleway=lane or equivalent cycleway:both=lane or cycleway:right=lane + cycleway:left=lane and not cycleway:right=lane + cycleway:left=opposite_lane. Similar, cycleway=soft_lane is not defined as only in direction of car traffic per se. In case of a oneway street, it could mean that there is only a cycle lane in the direction of traffic, but at the same time it doesn't necessarily exculde a cycle lane in contra flow direction.
In countries with right hand traffic cycleway:left=soft_lane could be assumed opposite to the osm_way direction and threfore counter flow on oneway streets, where as cycleway:right=soft_lane would be with traffic flow. In countries with left hand traffic it would be vice versa.
But if we want to reorganize the tagging scheme, I believe a different proposal would be needed. Plus, since cycleway=soft_lane seems to be a likely part of a new proposal, it doesn't hurt to approve it separately with this proposal first. --Hubert87 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In my experience opposite_lane and opposite is easy to both use and parse. This proposed scheme is IMHO not. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

New tag to mark that lane is not exclusive - what about not mandatory lanes?

This proposal intends to separate exclusive and not exlusive lanes. What about mandatory and not mandatory lanes? Because four tags would be an overkill, I would strictly prefer single cycleway=lane and subtags to tag whatever lane is mandatory and exclusive. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction. The proposal was intended to distinct between cycle lanes with dashed lines and other cycle lanes. It was always possible to distinct the different cycle lanes by using sub keys. However I wanted to present a simpler way for that. Just like with access=* (OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions) the implied meaning could differ from country to country. That way a mapper could just express the differnt looking cycle lane be tagging cycleway=soft_lane without knowing the exact traffic rules and corresponding cycleway:bicycle=*, cycleway:access=*, cycleway:traffic_sign=* or what ever tags. --Hubert87 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Use may be compulsory due to local laws (no, it is always mandatory due to national traffic laws)
"local" in this case doesn't mean "municipal" but that the rules may vary between Berlin, Paris or Warsaw. I choose local, because there might be countries (e.g. USA, if I am not mistaken) where the traffic laws could differ from state to state. At least I cannot eliminate that possibility.--Hubert87 (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No part of the neighbouring car lane

At least the German "Schutzstreifen" is no part of the neigbouring car lane.

As reference, a citation of the 2010 version of German ERA (Recommendations for cycling facilities):

ERA 2010, page 23
(part of chapter 3.2 Schutzstreifen)
  • Vierstreifige Straßen
Schutzstreifen können auf vierstreifigen Straßen
angelegt werden, wenn die Richtungsfahrbahn
mindestens 6,50 m breit ist.
Nach Möglichkeit sollte dann ein überbreiter Fahrstrei-
fen von mindestens 5,00 m Breite mit einem 1,50 m
breiten Schutzstreifen kombiniert werden.
Bei geringem Schwerverkehr kann auch eine Aufteilung
in einen linken Fahrstreifen von 2,75 m Breite, einen
rechten Fahrstreifen von 2,25 m Breite, sowie einen
1,50 m breiten Schutzstreifen in Betracht gezogen wer-


  • Four-lane roads ((Obviously, roads with four pre-existing lanes are meant.))
Protective lanes can be marked on streets with four lanes,
if the carriageway of that direction has a width of at least 6.50 m.
If possible, an oversized lane of 5.00 m width
should be combined with a protective lane of 1.50 m width.
With little traffic of heavy vehicles, also a division
into a left car lane of 2.75 m width,
a right car lane of 2.25 m width,
and a protective lane of 1.50 m width may be considered.

--Ulamm (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cycleway=track vs. *=lane *=soft_lane

Mind the differences of the traffic laws of different countries:

  • Belgish traffic laws don not distinguish cycletracks and bikelanes, and except of suggested lanes all are compulsory.
  • Several European countries have different rules for cycletracks and for bikelanes, and some have two kinds of each.--Ulamm (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of StVO attatchment 3, section 22 (on the dashed Leitlinie between car lane and Schutzstreifen)

Discussion moved from voting section

Cyclists are normally not even allowed to use Schutzstreifen, only if needed (bei Bedarf) if neither theyself nor another cyclist is endangered by this (see StVO Anlage 3 Randnummer 22). Same for other vehicle traffic. It's not possible to tag this with the current access schema. --rayquaza (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

At that site (no. 22 Leitlinie (dashed line)), "Fahrzeug" (vehicle), differently from the general terminology of StVO, is not uesd for all vehicles (which includes bicycles) but only for "Kraftfahrzeug" (motor vehicle)
Sentence 1. = Dashed lines mustn't be passed by vehicles, if the traffic is endangered that way.
Sentence 2. Wer ein Kraftfahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet werden.
=Who is driving a motor vehicle, is allowed to use the Schutzstreifen, which is marked by dashed lines, only if necessary. The cycle traffic mustn't be endangered that way.
Sentence 3. Wer ein Kraftfahrzeug führt, darf auf durch Leitlinien markierten Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nicht parken.
=Who is driving a motor vehicle, is not allowed to park it on the Schutzstreifen, which is marked by dashed lines.--Ulamm (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You're obviously wrong: The term Fahrzeug (german for vehicle) in the whole StVO always means all vehicles. This is also true for this attachment (i.e. sign 308 is also valid for cyclists). --rayquaza (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
As you can read, in my post I've written "differently from the general terminology of StVO".
Writing my last post, I thought, the VwV-terms were slang. But I was wrong, and your interpretation was wrong, too:
  • Both, motorists and cyclists, are allowed to pass the dashed line (Leitlinie) between car lane (Autofahrstreifen) and Schutzstreifen only if necessary.
    • Motorists may use the Schutzstreifen (right of the dashed line) only if necessary.
    • Cyclists may use the car lane (left of the dashed line) only if necessary.
  • Both, motorists and cyclists are not allowed to park their vehicles on the Schutzstreifen.--Ulamm (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Vorsichtshalber dieser Beitrag nochmal auf Deutsch:
Ich hatte doch selber geschrieben "abweichend von der sonst in der StVO üblichen Formulierung".
Aber damit lag ich falsch. Und du liegst mit deiner Interpretation falsch.
Die Wortwahl "Fahrzeug" ist korrekt:
  • Beide, Autofahrer wie Radler, dürfen die Leitlinie zwischen Autofahrstreifen und Schutzstreifen nur überfahren, wenn es notwending ist:
    • Die Autofahrer dürfen nur dann auf dem Schutzstreifen (rechts der Leitlinie) fahren, wenn es notwendig ist.
    • Die Radler dürfen nur dann auf dem KFZ-Streifen (links der Leitlinie) fahren, wenn es notwendig ist.
  • Beide, Autofahrer wie Radler, dürfen ihr Fahrzeug nicht auf dem Schutzstreifen parken.--Ulamm (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting thought. Guess I'll have to continue in german now ;-) Ich lese da, dass der Schutzstreifen, der durch Leitlinien markiert wird, nur bei Bedarf überfahren werden darf. Für die Leitlinie selbst gilt auch bei Schutzstreifen nur Absatz 1. --rayquaza (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


"fietssuggestiestrook (marked only by one dashed line or red colour, no legal status" This is wrong. A true Fietssuggestiestrook in the Netherlands is allways supposed to be red. The simple dashed line ( mainly secundairy roads outside the buildup area ) indicates a safety-shoulder, comparable to the hard shoulder on the motorway. Cyclists are supposed to drive on the left side of this line, but may cross it if needed. --Noordfiets (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info. However since voting is in progress, I'll deter from changing it right now. Just to be clear, the part "one dashed line or" is wrong and should be removed, am I right?--Hubert87 (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That those 50 cm stripes are inappropriate for cycling, is obvious if you are riding there. Thanks for the in formation that they are not a bad layout, but another element of roads.
I remember also suggestiestroken in different surface material (grey paving stones beside grey asphalt). Are the no more allowed?
--Ulamm (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear opponents

  • Some of you obviously have not understood the range of cycling facilities available in countries like France, Germany and the Czech Republic. Please read more on this feature!
  • To those who have understood the feature:
    • Mapping tools:
      • Qualified mapping affords clear tools to distinguish all aspects of infrastructure.
      • In order to be used by a great number of mappers, one kind of infrastructure ought to be described by one tag (See the Pelican vs. Toucan crossings, which make tagging very easy for British mappers.)
    • Evaluation:
      • Rendering and routing are the second step. It is the decision of the maintainers of those programs to use or disuse the data available.
      • Improvements of rendering and routing are impossible without a reliable database.
    • Questions:
      • Do you prefer low quality mapping?
      • If you prefer good tools for good mapping, what are your suggestions to tag the existing kinds of cycling facilities on carriageways?--Ulamm (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Soft lanes are a kind of lanes

From my point of view this holds. So maybe those who want to make a distinction may use something like cycleway:lane=soft_lane or cycleway:lane=soft.--U715371 (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cycle lanes also must be specified by their position and sometimes direction. For a complete information it is nicer to tag
cycleway:right=soft_lane or cycleway:both=soft_lane or oneway=yes + cycleway:left:backward=soft_lane
than cycleway:right:lane=soft or cycleway:both:lane=soft or oneway=yes + cycleway:left:backward:lane=soft.
--Ulamm (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)