Had a similar idea about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway=asl. To add some context, in France the law required traffic signals (named R11v) to be both on top of a pole, and repeated lower on it. Since 2015 the repetition isn’t required anymore, but nearly every city still has them (Paris seems to have started some removal). One consequence of having them so low on ground is that car drivers use to go up to the pole before stopping and looking at it through the side window. This situation is problematic in numerous ways as drivers’ attention at green light is focused on the light instead of the front of the car, and it’s difficult for cyclists to turn at intersections when coming from a painted bikelane.

Due to the car geometry, removing the repeaters would push back drivers a few meters away from the pole, thus creating an artificial advanced stop line for cyclists. And so, I created a little snippet to query the cycleways leading to traffic signals where ASL could be created with, or without any operators’ agreement (would be a shame if some plastic trash is flown by the wind and stuck to the repeater).

Code snippet for Kiel {{geocodeArea:Kiel}}->.searchArea; ( way(area.searchArea)[~"^cycleway.*$"~"."]; > -> .cyclable; ); node.cyclable["highway"="traffic_signals"]; out geom;

Any tips about the “disconnecting” part of the process?

My two cents, I can see two ways these crossings may be improved:

• crossing:markings: it seems the right of way could be better implied with painting

• crossing:continuous: self explanatory, similar to traffic calming

The grass buffer you mentionned is, still IMO, necessary. As it induces larger turn angles: slowing down drivers and offering better visibility between users at the crossing. Taking for reference the CROW, used for road design in Netherlands.

Good job people! Another usecase (that I’m working on) FYI would be winter service, as shaded areas are more prone to icy patches during the day (aggravated by the lack of visibility to drivers).

J’‘ai bien vu que c’est un WIP, mais ça m’étonne que la réflexion ne démarre pas de la clé https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:generator:method=anaerobic_digestion.

AFAIK there’re not 3 but 4. I wrote up some notes about them in french.

Idem, y a la carte parisienne de Joachimesque.

C’est pas aussi chiadé, mais t’avais connaissance du code de TafLeVélo ?

Lacked instructions for reproducibility but interesting nonetheless! I made my own version with a somehow streamlined R code.

tl;dr: Similar results in the french Doubs’ county. Approximately 130 single courts (~ 160 m² as per standard dimensions), 260 ”double courts” (~ 2,5 the standard court dimensions) for a total of 674 items.

Je ne sais pas si c’est une limite de Conflation (je n’ai pas creusé) mais le rapprochement ne se fait pas si le parking existant dans OSM est une ligne ou une surface. J’ai rencontré ce cas de temps à autre.

C’est étrange, sur Strasbourg j’ai eu aucun soucis avec du linéaire ou du surfacique. Je pense que l’erreur doit pas venir de Conflation.

De rien ! Au final c’est pas tant un tutoriel qu’un mémo pour la prochaine fois où j’aurai à bricoler la chose. Si des ateliers sont organisés je passe volontier faire un tour.

Pour ce qui est d’osmose j’avoue ne pas trop comprendre non plus. Le fichier semble avoir été intégré sur Github mais sur l’outil on voit toujours que Bordeaux, Paris, et Madrid. Faut que j’aille en discuter avec eux voir ce qui s’en dit.

Pour avoir les données Osmoses tu peux effectivement faire un export – c’est proposé dans la barre supérieure – que tu ouvriras dans l’éditeur de ton choix (je recommande OsmAnd pour la navigation, ou Vespucci si t’as besoin d’éditer sur place). Pas – encore – de guide à ma connaissance, mais si je le fais (une fois que la météo se réchauffe) alors j’en ferai également un petit guide.