How to tag a cycle crossing on a node

[balchen]

@Jofban

the only way to tell whether the cycle crossing has priority is to see whether the cars have to yield, is that correct?

A cycle crossing in NO is defined by the rectangular white dots.

The yielding is marked separately by the triangles and the yield signs. Naturally, they co-occur, BUT there is a HUGE caveat.

There are literally thousands of yield signs and/or triangles at cycleways with no cycle crossing. This is because the yield signs and triangles (self-evidently, according to the road authority) apply to the next REAL road (aka carriageway for cars), not the cycleway.

So immediately this torpedos the not unreasonable idea that looking for yield signs on the crossing carriageway will allow us to detect a cycle crossing. Now we have to apply heuristics like “well, there’s only ONE yield sign, and there’s a junction with another carriageway less than 15 meters away, so…”.

Or you depend on mappers being able to tag the cycle crossing yield sign as a cycle crossing yield sign, and if you did that, why not tag the cycle crossing instead.

@Jofban

In some cases, yielding is signposted, is other cases there seems to be a checkerboard pattern in lieu of a stop line.

The checkerboard markings indicate a traffic calming table. The non-checkerboard dots indicate a cycle crossing.

@Jofban

We could try to make it a bit easier to parse with a tag like priority_crossing=yes_unposted, similar to priority_road=yes_unposted. This would naturally apply to both pedestrians and cyclists. What do you think?

Honestly, I can’t wrap my head around it. Would that be tagged on the crossing segment and the junction node?

For pedestrian crossings, we seem to infer that they are priority crossings if they’re marked, and non-priority crossings if they’re unmarked. Am I right?

@Jofban

My reasoning for putting tags on crossing nodes is that it was once the standard way to do and as such many older routing engines don’t check the crossing way. In that regard, it makes sense to tag those they are looking for as an ATYL, but it doesn’t do much to formalise new ones as the routers that it would affect won’t change their behaviour and new or maintained ones should implement the proper checking.

Ah. Well, that’s something I know very little about, but the wiki seems to disagree with you. It may be outdated. Maybe @Richard can contribute router expertise once again.