User talk:Eimai/Belgian Roads

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The proposed scheme is a disaster for cyclists. There are several thousands of dedicated cycleways (I mean the ones which do not run as bicycle lanes or tracks along a road for motorised traffic, but are completely separate). Signalisation is endlessly varied. Most frequent are different kinds of access restricting signs or contraptions like bollards. Only very few of these carry one of the D7, D8 or D9 signs. For instance, none of the Walloon RAVeLs (long distance routes dedicated for bicycles, often newly constructed) I have used had such signs. Nevertheless use of highway=cycleway is restricted to D7, D8, D9 roads. Using this scheme means that the vast majority of dedicated cycleways with no or only sporadic motor traffic will be tagged as highway=path and will be indistinguishable from `real' paths where cycling is allowed but not possible with a standard bike. Since it will be years before sufficient detailed tagging on surface quality and smoothness will be present to make the distinction I propose that we stick to the international standard for cycleways.

And as said before, we don't map for the renderer to make you have nice blue dotted lines on the mapnik rendering for all the paths you deem suited well enough for cycling. We're making a geographical database, not anything else. If you think the rendering is a disaster for cyclists, you should make your own one. But yeah, we can only do that if we tag everything well. Btw, I'm pretty sure a lot of the roads you're tagging cycleway are permitted to be used by horse drivers as well, why aren't you tagging them bridleway then? The map is such a disaster for horse riders! (previous sarcasm due to "me vs. I do not want to argue" discussion via personal messages) --Eimai 10:59, 8 September 2012 (BST)

D10 sign: cycleway shared with pedestrians or footway shared with cyclists?

The situation illustrated with the D10 sign is okay as a small dedicated alley tagged with a highway=cycleway that accepts pedestrians (i.e. foot=yes and segregated=no).

In recent years, in Brussels I’ve seen an increase of the number of D10 signs to be installed on ordinary sidewalks (i.e. narrow sidewalk between a range of houses and the main road). I wonder whether those cases shoud be mapped instead as highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + bicycle=yes + segregated=no. I suppose it won’t do any difference for most routing apps. This is incidently closer to the "spirit" of traffic rules (cyclists are guests in a zone that is normally for pedestrians, not the opposite).

I would recommend that we show both options (cycleway or footway). And it is up to every mapper to use some judgement to select the most appropriate option.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance. Bxl-forever (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

D9 or D10 sign where cyclists can only travel one-way

Many cycle tracks are one-way for cyclists. This is the case when traffic signs are only placed in one direction.

What happens when we use oneway=yes? Do some data consumers that also do pedestrian routing use this value? In that case, this will damage the quality of information presented to pedestrians, as some possibilities will be excluded. (And yes, one-way footways do exist: in public transport stations, museum entrances, or more generally any place that has turnstiles or that wants to manage large crowds).

oneway:bicycle=yes would be the recommended option but I am not sure that many data consumers are aware of it.

How would you recommend dealing with those situations? Bxl-forever (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)