Could you explain that a little more please.
If I (as a Renderer) simply want to show all cyclways, regardless of their type and road side, I just look for “cycleway=" (and additionly "bicycle=” for all cyclable ways) and a “=no" tag needs to be excluded either way. It then will show a line when the key is one of “lane/shared_lane/right/left/both/etc.”. No Information lost there. Contrary, it is easier, because I wouldn’t need to include "cycleway:right/left=” to show that a cycleway is present if it is only tagged for one side of the road.
If I want to show the cycleway, regardless of its type, but on the correct side of the road, and I don’t know the “cycleway=right/left/both” tags, I already have to look for a “cycleway:right/left=*” tag and render it on the appropriate side. “cycleway=right/left/both” doesn’t concern me in that case. Also,when there is no “cycleway:right/left” key the values “right/left/both” wouldn’t be present in the “cycleway” tag, since it would have the ‘normal’ “track/lane/shared_lane/etc.” keys.
It also wouldn’t be a problem, when I want to render the cycleway differntly for every type and on the correct side of the road. I still need a solution for when I have two differnt types on each side and that solution than also works if both side are the same.
What case am I missing that would’t make it a problem?
Hubert, it’s nice to see that the tag-checker is used internationally now …
I did take a look at the ’ Lübecker Methode". I can understand the underlying principles, but
from a Dutch point of view it’s overly complicated.
But we in the Netherlands must realize that our approach to cycling is not common in the world.
As for Germany: in my experience only Ost-Friesland is quite simular to our roads. In fact: it’ still feels like home …
Yes, it’s a very nice tool, if you want to quickly check the bicycle/cycleway-taggings without loading everything in JOSM in filter it.
Yes, it is. And it took me a while to understand parts of it. Also, I don’t map exactly like it, because I differ on some Keys or Values. But I like the structure. Plus it’s nicely shows the problem when mixing the German-Order-System with our highway code and the possibilities of OSM.
Do you have non mandatory but exclusive cycleways in the Netherlands? I couldn’t find anything with google or in wikipedia.
Not yet anyway. In germany we want dutch cycleways, the swiss rialway and the skandinavian educational system. Also other Countrys are looking towards the Netherlands on how to build cycleways.
Yes, in the country side the cycleway “infrastructure” is fairly developed. One only has to share it with Pedestrians, Mofas, and tree roots. The Problems are the cities. That where it get complicated. Oh and one always has to watch for turning vehicles, not the otherway around.(Sadly no irony.)
Edit:Typo
If you have cycleway=both (and no other tags) you have to make a guess as to what type. So you end op drawing that as e.g. bold blue casings to the road. A shared_lane would only get dashed casings. But you won’t see that if you tag cycleway=both + cycleway:left=shared_lane + cycleway:right=shared_lane unless there is a special rule to ignore the cycleway=both if the others are present.
It’s a bit like initially tagging a way with cycleway=track and then later drawing separate ways for the cycleways. If you don’t remove the cycleway=track at that time, then you are saying that there are four cycleways in stead of two.
Maybe the problem for me to understand your concern is, that I am using Maperitive and OsmAnd for Rendering. But:
- I am not saying that one should only use cycleway=both/left/rigth and nothing else. I belive that if someone has little time or experience one can use it to discribe that a cycleway is present; so cycleway=right/left/both is to be places somewhere between cycleway=yes and cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane or cycleway:right/left=track/lane/shared_lane if the cycleway is only on one side of the road.
- How do you distinguish a cycleway=shared_lane from an other type, let say cycleway=lane? It could only be a problem with bad rendering algorithms like
IF cycleway=shared_lane THEN
dashed line
ELSE
solid line
ENDIF
Otherwise it wouldn’t show up at all because cycleway=both/right/left are unknown.
IF cycleway=lane THEN solid line ENDIF
IF cycleway=shared_lane THEN dashed line ENDIF
And what about the case where you have two diferent types, lets say cycleway:left=shared_lane + cycleway:right=lane. Wouldn’t that be a problem, too?
Also, is this a purely theoretical discussion? Or is there a renderer that doesn’t render it correctly, so that I can see what I would cause with that?
Edit:First version accidently submitted by pressing
I think it’s very confusing for mapmakers if there are a lot of interpretations on OSM around how to map cycleways. For instance in Lübeck they seem to have tags like cycleway:left=sidepath which is clearly not accepted widely on OSM and therefore not rendered on my Openfietsmap. I think this page describes the best what is widely accepted:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
(Unfortunately the German and Dutch translations of this page have a totally different content!)
But it is often forgotten that building the ways is only part of the solution. There also needs to be a change in the way cyclists and motorists interact …
Ligfietser:
The Lübeck method uses double tagging. On top of the double tagging there is also a relation added between the cycleway and main road.
A seperate cycleway ( eigenständiger Weg ) is tagged as highway=cycleway but the road next to it is tagged with cycleway:left/right/both and cycleway:left=sidepath pointing to the allready existing cycleway. So rendering of these extra tags in not needed. Lanes/tracks are tagged as usual, but additional the cycleway:left/right/both tag is used. Again this tag does not need to be rendered, since lane/track are allready rendered. Looking at it it seems that the Lübeck tags can be ingored without influencing normal rendering.
Apart from the double tagging there is also an addtional legal tagging: a cycleway is tagged with cycleway:designated. The latter is allready implied with highway=cycleway.
It is part of a project to render a citymap for cyclists. It seems tagging has been adapted to suit this project, and this project only.
I don’t think it creates any problem with existing renderers like OFM: the additional tags are ignored, but the commonly used tags are still there and rendered.
Indeed, cycleway:right/left=sidepath is just to say/warn that there is a highway=cycleway drawn sepretly but parallel the specific highway=road/*. Also, I don’t know if there is a single renderer or router that uses it, but it might some day be interesting for routing in conjungtion with bicycle=use_sidepath. Right now its probably just used to keep the tagging strucktur in tact.
In fact, I just found a situation where one would get a problem with tagging cycleway=right/left/both. That is if there are one ore two separetly drwan cycleway next to the road. Then when just rendering all cycleway containing tags one would get 2 or 3 parallel line. I need to think about that a little.
Nu ook aan de gang geweest.
En kwam een dingentje tegen.
Had alles van jouw overgenomen met nieuwe structuur.
Maar miste de close.gif in de popup.
rechtsboven uit klikken wil wel
blijkt dat je de style.css en mystyle.css in de root van de webpagina hebt staan.
en dan staat in de style.css
.olPopupCloseBox {
background: url("img/close.gif") no-repeat;
cursor: pointer;
}
en dat verwijst naar een map img die niet in de root staat. Maar wel ?
en daar kan je mooi een tijdje mee bezig zijn styles vergelijken.
ik was ook dat pink roze zat als een layer niet werkt, toen ik struikelde over de code, ik heb er maar “bad” van gemaakt in de style
.olImageLoadError {
background-color: #335bad;
opacity: 0.5;
filter: alpha(opacity=50); /* IE */
}
Allroads, ik kan nergens een close.gif code vinden? 
Ai, dat klopt. Bij het opruimen mapje teveel weggegooid …
Ik heb alles gereorganiseerd en de api lokaal gezet ( wie weet hoelang openlayers nog de oude api blijft ondersteunen … )
Het geheel staat in een http://server.mijneigen.net/fiets/tags/tags.zip zip bestand.
Hopelijk is het daarmee ook wat overzichtelijker geworden …
Ligfietser: die close.gif kwam van de openlayers site, bij het aanpassen van de css klopte daarom de link niet meer.
Omdat ik de kleurtjes van de bedieningelementen had aangepast. i.p.v. blauw standaard.
Had ik de openlayers.js en aanverwante zaken lokaal gezet, en daar stond in openlayers/theme/default/img/close.gif, die je te zien kreeg in de popup
de aangeroepen originele style (style.css) stond in de map default.
is niet zozeer het aanpassen originele style, maar de plaats van de style t.o.v. de overige mappen en dus verwijzing naar close.gif
@Noordfiets opent hij wel goed als ik lokaal unpack en index.html open
dan staat de layerswitcherlayers, links en dus niet goed.
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../api/theme/default/style.css" type="text/css"> <!-- basis OL stylesheet == default theme -->
haal ik de …/ weg dan doet hij het goed lokaal op pc
<link rel="stylesheet" href="api/theme/default/style.css" type="text/css"> <!-- basis OL stylesheet == default theme -->
daar worstelde ik ook mee en zonder …/weg was het over, op dat test siteje va mij
Van de webbeheerder kreeg ik een bericht dat ~ligfietser site op mijndev mogelijk gehackt is en geblokkeerd wordt als ik er niets aan doe.
Geen idee wat er aan de hand is, de BTM map heb ik maar geplaatst op dit adres voor het geval mijn account wordt opgeheven. 
Gehackt, houd dat in dat er data verandert is/aangepast. Bijvoorbeeld in file openlayers.js
Denk ik te simpel,
Als je dan “alles” er af gooit, verwijdert.
En de reservebestanden (pc backup), er weer opnieuw opzet, en in de tussentijd je wachtwoord verandert is het dan opgelost.
Als het jouw kan overkomen, waarom de andere niet met mijndev.
Gehackt is de verkeerde term sorry, volgens Norton betreft het een Malicious Site, maar die zit er wel vaker naast.
Heb nog een aantal scans erop losgelaten (virustotal, urlquery) maar die troffen geen malware aan. Zal wel een false positive melding zijn geweest.
Why wood is listed as unpaved on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_tags_map#Surface_tags ? I would expect at least semi-paved.
Or maybe it is just a regional thing, in Poland wood as surface appears only on wooden bridges. Maybe in Netherlands wood as surface implies much lower quality.
Yes, think of paths with wood chips
I started topic on tagging mailing list to resolve this ambiguous tagging, comments are welcomed.
The consensus was that surface=woodchips should be used for things with woodchip surface.