For many years, we have wanted to see wholesale scrapping/reworking of the existing bicycle page to something much clearer:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
Tagging for cycle infrastructure is arguably one of the more complex areas of OSM to get right, yet this page makes things even harder, especially because of the giant table of over-complex, obscure layout cases, and lack of any sense of what really matters in ensuring the created data will result in good routing/cartography. It lacks a good, clear structure, and instead the reader’s focus is on a table of obscure cases. It has also become a bit of a dumping ground, as new infrastructure and ‘stuff’ has appeared over the last decade.
We would like to seek consensus to rework this page entirely.
We suggest the following proposed structure, but would welcome comments:
- Opening to note why OSM is the best cycling data source and making clear how the cycle network means everywhere, not just ‘bike lanes’
- Start with a really clear overview of the broad categorisations of cycle infrastructure, essentially providing a kind of ‘initial triage’, so the mapper gets an immediate sense of what area of tagging they should be using and can then work down that hierarchy
- A clear description, with examples, of the lane vs track question, i.e. adding attributes to an existing way vs separate way
- Moving the complex table off the page to a separate page of detailed cycle infrastructure road layouts†
- On the main page remaining, retaining from that chart only the most common example layouts, which cover a 90% use-case, so that these are not lost within the massive pile of fairly irrelevant examples (e.g. B1 being a prime example)
- Then information on key attributes which are most relevant to routing, e.g. see this list, to encourage their widespread adoption and thereby increase the metadata quality of cycle-specific infrastructure
- Then discussion of access tagging, currently called ‘Bicycle restrictions’, which needs to be clearer about different unresolved views about what exactly ‘no’ vs ‘dismount’ means, and to deal with the issue of exclusive/advisory, and to help to start to clear up the UK ‘Cyclists Dismount’ mess that is confused with
dismount. - Then discussion of ‘routes’, i.e. lcn/ncn/rcn etc.
- Then dealing with contraflow cycling
- Then dealing with the excellent new separation spec
- Short mention of the issue of ensuring traffic light tagging and directionality is correct when dealing with layouts of multiple parallel Ways making up a street
- Then dealing with barriers, including linking to the excellent new cycle barrier spec
- Then discussion of what is currently called ‘Facilities’, with perhaps some moving of things like bicycle counters to their own page, i.e. list each type of thing and have the detail on their own page
- Moving bicycle clubs and associations to a separate page, but obviously linking to it
- Moving the random dumping ground of bits and bobs that opens the ‘See also’ section to their relevant areas
- Finishing with the maps/routers as present, unless this becomes larger in which case each should be sub-paged similarly.
Essentially, the feeling of using this page should be a kind of hierarchy, where the most important concepts are clearly presented first, enabling the reader then to drill down into more detailed understanding progressively.
Also the opportunity would be taken to mop up various things outstanding from the Talk page that have been lingering there for a while and could be merged in.
One settled, the translations of the page could be updated as a full-update exercise.
Would welcome thoughts on this structure, as well as hopefully a general consensus that this page needs to be reworked.
† Personally I would like to consign that chart to the bin of history entirely. But speaking with a bit less emotion, I accept it has some use. It mainly just shouldn’t be a massive prominent thing that obscures broader and more important understanding of cycle tagging as a whole. – Martin