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
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
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.
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.
Hi Mateusz, I dont consider a path with surface=woodchips as paved, try using the path with highheels, a wheelchair or buggy’s (childrens). Most operators use them on a path to mark the track and prevent growth of weeds.
