Changeset: 57774559
Mark some exclusionary barriers around the West Cambridge site
Closed by CamcycleMatt
Tags
changesets_count | 17 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.7.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-US |
Discussion
-
Comment from mueschel
Hi,
you used the tag "inclusive = no" on several barriers, what is the meaning of this tag?
Jan -
Comment from CamcycleMatt
I'm investigating some ideas for annotating problematic barriers installed on cycle routes that exclude people riding adapted cycles, tricycles or recumbent cycles. Hopefully this can eventually become a searchable database based on OSM.
-
Comment from mueschel
"inclusive" is not actually a "speaking tag" - it could be anything. What is the exact width when you start using this tag? what about bicycles with trailers?
I would recommend to stay with the established tagging schemes: You can always use a "maxwidth" tag - this carries a lot of information and should be supported by most routing codes. -
Comment from CamcycleMatt
Thank you for the suggestion.
Sorry that I also forgot to mention cycles with trailers. Inclusive is meant to capture the full range of pedal cycle-type vehicles. I realise that is a fairly vague category, however it is an issue here. For practical purposes I usually refer people to Highways England Interim Advice Note 195/16, section 2.2.4, which contains a definition of 'design cycle' and information about various different types of cycles that should be expected on routes and accommodated.
In any case, the tag 'maxwidth' does not capture the full meaning of 'inclusive' infrastructure. British councils have installed some quite nefarious and intricate obstacles on paths over the years. For one thing, it's not about width, it's also about layout and difficulty of use. For example, we have a bollard and an entryway right outside my office that appears to allow a wide enough path for recumbent cycles, but because of their arrangement it was impossible for my friend to navigate past them on his disability-adapted cycle. For another example, we have chicanes on cycle routes that have been arranged to be just wide enough to permit a mobility scooter, however, people riding cycles with trailers routinely crash into them. We have other types of barriers that can be passed only if you can lift your cycle off the ground, etc.
I would post photos if I could figure out how to do that on OSM. Some of the examples are really quite dastardly.
Therefore, 'inclusive' is an important word in the UK because it means that the route is open to all people of all abilities, and there won't be any of these arbitrary and horrible obstacles in the way.
I am OK if tools don't yet support the tag, as it is a work in progress. I do realise that I am new to the OSM world so I am happy to take suggestions and corrections. Thanks.
-
Comment from mueschel
Barriers like this exist almost everywhere. As you describe there are many different kinds of obstacles that hinder users of one or more specific kinds of vehicles. I fully agree that this is important information to include in OSM, but I'm sure that you need a much more specific tagging with many more options. A simple 'inclusive' is not very useful because very few ways are really inclusive and can be used by ansolutely everyone.
Nodes (4)
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 |