Changeset: 131572095
(no comment)
Closed by Dafo43
Tags
build | 2020_12_29 |
---|---|
created_by | Potlatch |
os | Windows 10 |
version | 3.0 |
Discussion
-
Comment from gogorm
Hi Dafo43,
Can you please give an explanation for deleting some shared cycle+foot paths around Adamstown Road? -
Comment from Dafo43
Yes,
1. The general agreement was that in Ireland we wouldn't map the paths directly beside the road. I have seen no discussion where this was changed.
2. The cycle path is still mapped as part of the road.
3. The map was unreadable by adding multiple bridges, when in reality there is only one bridge.
4. It wasn't an accurate representation since the cycle paths yields to every side road and a petrol station, this was not shown when mapped. -
Comment from gogorm
I'll answer with respect to the section north of Grand Canal heading past the petrol station on Adamstown Road. (It's hard to tell from your changeset where the other deleted sections (if any) are, since osm doesn't plot the location of deleted objects).
I'm not against having on-road cycleway tags in cases like Adamstown Road, but you just deleted the separately mapped cycle paths without replacing them with on-road cycleway tags.
That's why I posted my comment yesterday.Anyway, to address your points:
1. When I started contributing to OSM, I asked the OpenStreetMap Ireland group on Telegram what the consensus was on which cycle track/lane mapping approach to use in Ireland. I was informed of this agreement, rather to follow the guidelines/examples given by OSM (wiki).
I would like to know more about this general agreement.2. The cycle path is not still mapped as part of the road. North of the Grand Canal, where you deleted the separately mapped cycle paths, there isn't a cycle path mapped as part of the road.
3. Readability of the map depends on what application you are using to view the map?
If you want to show that there is only one bridge when there are several ways marked as bridge, you can add a bridge area/outline as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge
This approach is widely used around Dublin for example.4. The crossing node at intersections with the cycle path and minor roads showed this need to yield. For example I added crossings where the path intersects the petrol station entrace/exit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9840063853
Admittedly I didn't tag every single minor road intersection node with a highway=crossing node, but anyone who wishes to add this extra level of detail is free to do so.It was exactly because of the frequent yielding that I chose to use a separately mapped cycle path here.
With the on-road cycleaway tag there is no way to indicate that cyclists must yield at every junction. How can the on-the-road cycleway tag convey the need to yield to every minor road/driveway? -
Comment from gogorm
*I meant to say "I wasn't informed of this agreement" in point 1.
-
Comment from Dafo43
1. I've tried to find it on the wiki but don't see it anymore, so can only assume it was removed at some point. I have seen it mentioned on the mailing list, which seemingly some people use and some people not, which is not a great situation. I would agree that in general people should follow the wiki. In this case it gives the option of 2, but the tagging of roadways precedes the individual tagging of roads, so in my opinion either everything should be changed or the original tagging should be followed. Having a mix of both is the worst outcome.
-
Comment from Dafo43
2. The tagging can be easily fixed.
3. I'm aware of the bridge area tag and of other map renders, on most it looks worse than the default render. It's unreadable on my Garmin for example.
4. I guess in general I would ask what's the need, there's a cycle lane of some sort on the majority of all roads in Dublin, having it mapped on OSM is not going to change my route plans. -
Comment from gogorm
1. Yes, not good to have a conflicting approaches. I prefer tagging on the roadway for the most part, but to convince everyone to use one consistent approach, and replace everything that has already been mapped, is just not feasible.
2. Yes of course.
3. That is unfortunate. I haven't seen what it actually looks like on a Garmin, but I find it hard to lay the blame on osm data for a map readability issue.
4. To give some examples,
when I'm going to cycle to somewhere far away that I've never cycled to before, I sometimes find it useful to know which roads have cycle lanes/tracks, e.g. to plan a route that is faster/safer/less hilly/more direct/more enjoyable/[insert preference here].
Someone could also do this to optimise their commute to work/school etc.I suppose someone could analyse the data using a tool such as overpass turbo to generate statistics about cycle provisions in a given area if they wanted to. This statistical information could then be used for many purposes.
-
Comment from Dafo43
I'll send a mail to the mailing list, at the very least the Ireland wiki page should say one way or another what approach should be used, and not have a mix of both.
-
Comment from gogorm
There are merits to each approach. The internationally practiced approaches are compatible with Ireland.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle gives sufficient guidance. -
Comment from Dafo43
It's being discussed on the mailing list now, so if you want to join then go here - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie .
-
Comment from gogorm
Thanks, I joined the list, but I'm waiting for another email to be sent in that thread, so I have something in my inbox which enables me to reply in the thread.
-
Comment from Dafo43
Sorry, was busy for the last while. They took the discussion off thread for some reason, so I'm waiting for an update myself.
Ways (1-20 of 28)
- 1
- 2
- 1134266462, v1
- 1134266463, v1
- 1134266464, v1
- Adamstown Road (5077538), v14
- Adamstown Road (5077539), v14
- Grand Canal Way (53287201), v9
- Grand Canal Way (55412182), v9
- Adamstown Road (131003316), v8
- Former Waterways Ireland (255465487), v2
- Adamstown Road (314244389), v8
- 674250339, v3
- 763075597, v2
- 1072467730, v2
- Grand Canal Way (1125411154), v2
1072467729, v21072467732, v21072467733, v31072467734, v21072467735, v21072467737, v2
Relations (3)
- Grand Canal Way (1330089), v78
- Grand Canal Greenway (15056633), v3
- Grand Canal Greenway (15056634), v3
- 10574602483, v1
- 10574602484, v1
- 10574602485, v1
- 10574602486, v1
- 10574602487, v1
- 10574602488, v1
- 10574602489, v1
- 10574602490, v1
- 10574602491, v1
- 10574602492, v1
- 10574602493, v1
- 10574602494, v1
- 10574602495, v1
- 10574602496, v1
- 696250090, v5
- 2611501989, v2
- 2611502075, v2
- 2611502224, v3
- 2611502287, v2
- 2611502477, v2
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |