Proposal talk:Buffered bike lane

This tag began as cycleway=buffered_lane (see discussion here) then evolved to lane=buffered (see discussion here) and now to cycleway:buffer=* based on feedback from other mappers. The benefit of this third incarnation is that it avoids confusion with other lane=* or lanes=* tags that are not bicycle specific and it offers the option of indicating the location of the buffer. --grant.humphries 17:06, 2 March 2012 (PST)

Confused as to how this works

I believe it's usually illegal to cross a double white line. So how do cars get into the parking spaces? --NE2 02:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a double white line? I would say there are 2 single lines, one belongs to the cycleway, other to "motorcar"-road. -- MasiMaster 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

On first seeing this, I assumed that the buffer was a physical barrier, like a raised kerb/curb, surface feature, railing or bollards. That should be considered as another type of buffer as part of the overall tagging solution in this proposal. For example : separators between motor vehicles and the cycleway Qurm 09:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Relation to other Proposal(s)

I'm not sure about this proposal yet, but maybe you should connect it to the lane mapping proposals. I think you should check those for compatibility and bring your idea into discussion there, too. There is a new one (I know, again) currently under discussion that seems promising to me: Lanes General Extension. And there are more in the "See also" section. Seoman 08:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC) OK, just now a cut down version of this has gone to voting, I mean the original proposal. Seoman 11:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this is fully compatible with the :lanes proposal.

 cycleway:lanes=lane|no|no|lane
 cycleway:buffer:lanes=right|no|no|left

Works for me. You have to keep in mind, that this could (and should) be solved by some generic divider tag. But discussion on this was abondend so it may be a while until we see a solution there. --Imagic 17:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

cycleway:buffer is uses with other conditions

cycleway:buffer is used in Belgium: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/ Cycleways#Optional_Tags (wikipage was build in May 2010)
But there is a difference: the buffer there is a value (in meter) distance between road and cycleway (on cycleway=track include the possible parkingspace and the piece of green)
I think your proposal is verry difficult to read:
cycleway:right:buffer:right:width=0.5
cycleway:right:buffer:left:width=1.5   (this is the buffer between cycleway & road)
cycleway:left:buffer:right:width=1.5   (this is the buffer between cycleway & road)
cycleway:left:buffer:left:width=0.5
-> in some direction its buffer:left, in other buffer:right.
In my opinion, the better way is to use buffer only for between cycleway & road. For the "other" buffer we can find an other name!? or value like buffer:width=1.5;0.5 -- MasiMaster 15:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Current status

This proposal is marked as abandoned, so is it OK to map it this way or not? Where I live, there are single white line bike lanes, and on some faster-moving, busier roads, there are double white line bike lanes (aka buffered bike lanes). It is important for people traveling by bicycle to know whether the bicycle lane is buffered on fast, busy streets because a single white line is unsafe and usually avoided on such streets. Whereas a double white line offers more protection and enables people to ride on such streets. Buffered bike lanes are also explicitly displayed on multiple municipal bike maps across Canada.

There's Proposal:Separation now. You can start with cycleway:*:marking=double_solid_line first.
I suppose the direction is to treat cycleway:*:buffer=* / cycleway:*:buffer:width=* as the area, or lateral clearance. I'm thinking cycleway:*:marking=barred_area should be renamed (not really English, and not proper terminology) and moved there.
—— Kovposch (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)