I would like to enquire about what is the status quo of the current tagging practice in the Netherlands for:
fietsstroken met doorgetrokken streep
fietsstroken met onderbroken streep
fietssuggestiestroken
Is there something like a consensus in the Dutch community on how to tag it? From the wiki, I take it is cycleway=lane for the first two (no distinction) and cycleway=shared_lane for the latter. Does this reflect actual tagging practice?
If yes, and separate from that enquiry, I would like to ask you for your opinion if you consider the latter tagging as an ok solution, since shared_lane seems to have been defined as something else for US. Not sure if this is a problem, I just want your opinion. (This US-like tagging is now emerging in Germany as well by the way, see http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170405/oq5atr62.jpg, where you see on the left a “shared lane marking”, on the right, a suggestion strip).
What a weird picture that is, showing the cyclist on the footway, and I know in many places in Germany cyclists have to ride on the footway.
For my part, I find the tagging scheme as you posted with the three pictures OK.
Don’t know about consensus. Might be consensus-ish!
I had understood that if there is a cycle symbol on the road, it is a lane, no symbol, it is a shared_lane. This is the way I tag.
Recently in a village the cycle symbols are removed from the road due to a wish of the civilians as - in the Netherlands - you may not park on a lane with cycle symbols.
1 and 2 are official cycleways… 3. doesn’t has an official status in The Netherlands . It suggests there is a cycleway so cars will slow down because the road looks more narrow.
Netherlands and perhaps Belgium is the only country in the world that I know of which distinguishes cycle lanes with dashed lines and fietssuggestiestroken (bicycle suggestion lanes) in legislation. That’s why I ask, what is the distinction in practice, for the cyclists?
Other countries that employ cycle lanes with dashed lines do that usually if there is not enough space on the road for a cycle lane with a continous line. If dashed cycle lanes exist in the Netherlands for the same reason (= not enough space → cycle lane is narrower?), why is there a distinction made between 2. and 3. in legislation? Or in other words, why is there 3. at all, if there is 2. (or the other way round)?
Note that there is a difference in the Netherlands between a cycle lane that is marked with a continuous line and one that is marked with a dashed line.
With a continuous line, cars are not allowed to cross the line. With a dashed line, cars are allowed to cross the line as long as they don’t interfere with bikes on the cycle lane.
In my opinion, ‘fietssuggestiestroken’ are a clear sign that these days roads are designed by hobbyists. Anyone who is serious about safety engineering would never use them.
In practice it means the fietssuggestiestroken are filled with parked cars (inside towns/villages).
Also in the municipality many cycle lanes are being converted to fietssuggestiestroken.
The politicians decided they prefer to use the lanes on the main roads (connecting roads between 2 towns/villages) to be car parking areas (instead of bicycle lanes). So the bicycle signs are actively being removed.
Parked cars and bicycle lanes both slow down the traffic on the main lanes, so they don’t see a difference…
