Category talk:Bikeways

Return to "Bikeways" page.

Scope of the categoryEdit

I don't agree with the present scope description of this category: “For media related to bikeways in the meaning of segregated bicycle facilities. Bikeways are special ways or lanes for bicycles (only). These may or may not be part of a named, numbered or otherwise marked cycling route. This category is not for media related to shared-use roads (for cars and bicycles together) if no bicycle lane is marked - those files may however belong in Category:Cycling routes.”

I know the terminology distinction between “cycling route” and “cycling way”. But I favour broader approach in scope of this category. It would intended for all ways which are anywise intended for bicycle traffic – not only for “segregated bicycle facilities” neither ony for ways marked by blue round sign of cycling way.

Reasons:

  • the terminology isn't identical worldwide.
  • For example, there exist in many countries special term and special sign for "bikeway", which aren't interchangeable with other segregated cycle facilities. For example, in the Czech Republic are the "cycle trail" (Stezka pro cyklisty") and "cycle lane" (Vyhrazený jízdní pruh pro cyklisty) two entirely different terms. The "cycle lane" is as term of rules a part of carriage way and the traffic at it is regulated alike at bus lanes. The "cycle trail" isn't a part of carriage way, but it can be a part of walkway. The "cyclist crossing" isn't a part of "cycle trail" and isn't a part of "cycle lane". The cycle lane may be passed through a road junctiion, the cycle trail cann't be.
  • the "bikeway" (as the way marked by the blue round sign in Europe) needn't be segregated for cycling. Very often it is shared by pedestrians.
  • the "cycle lane" needn't be segregated for cycling. Somewhere it is shared by buses, taxicabs etc.
  • there are also another ways of such marking. If the way is equipped by sign of driving ban for all motor vehicles or driving ban for motor vehicles with the exception of residents, the effect is almost identical as the effect of bikeway sign. The cycling routes are placed naturally very often (and in preference) just at similarly calmed ways – though they are not marked by the round blue sign of bikeway. In point of view of photographs, there's no point in strict separation of images by the fact, whether is used the blue round sign or the prohibition sign.
a) The prohibition sign can have an identical effect as the "bikeway" sign.
b) The "bikeway" and the "cycling route" are two aspect of one identical way mostly.
c] Bikeways are not strictly segregated, but they may be in many ways shared by pedestrians, riders, public transport, traffic of residents etc.

As I wrote here, I prefer to have all "ways for cyclists" in one common category of bikeways (the special aspects of "bikeways" and "cycle routes" can be expressed by special subcategories (bikeways signs, bikeways surface road marking, cycling routes). The uponcategory Category:Cycling infrastructure can contain the unlike concepts separately: for example bicycle stands, parking places, buffets and rest places for cyclists, cyclo-buses (vehicles for transport of bicycles), bicycle services, rental offices and salesrooms of bicycles, the summary category of cycling signs etc.

In fine, we haven't some fundamental controversy. The question is whether can be a help for reader, if he can find cycling routes at the top of bikeways category, or whether those ordering (one "redundant" line) can cause some relevant harms. I'm sure, the utility is past compare greater. It is better to connect related items twice than to be missing some cardinal connection. --ŠJů (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A cycling route is really not a special form of bikeway. After thinking it thoroughly over (see User:Nillerdk/Category scheme cycling infrastructure), I've come to the conclusion that it is easier to keep these concepts apart. I think it is no problem to count a cycle lane as a special bikeway, even if it has limited shared use with busses, motercycles or cabs etc. Likewise it is no problem to count something as a bikeway even if is shared with pedestrians or riders. We just have to formulate this properly in the category scope (because, as you say, concepts vary internationally). I'll ask for a third opinion on the Village Pump. Don't be offended about this - it is nothing personal. Nillerdk (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A had never argued that "a cycling route is a special form of bikeway". But I assert, that

  • cycling route is often marked along one or more bikeways and every part of every cycling route is bikeway in a broad sense (a way which is advised to cyclists someways)
  • every purposefull bikeway is a part of one or more cycling route (no matter whether marked or unmarked).
  • though "a cycling route" isn't bikeway (but rather some aspect or purpose of bikeways), a photo depict all aspect of such way (with the exception of detailed photo of a sign which marks one specific aspect)
  • the fact that there exists a number of modalities which may to assign some road or trail for cyclists, suggests that there's no point in separate the photos of trails by itself only after a modality of marking. Only differentiation of signs by sort is worth, not differentiation of cycling ways itself by sort of signs.

I had never thought that every photo which is specifficaly related to "cycling route" concept should be categorized into "cycling route" category and every photo which is specifficaly related to some specific form of bikeway marking should be categorized by such sort of marking. But i assert, that we should keep in view the broader sense of "bikeway" concept, which includes a number of marking methods with similar effect. If we would conceive the "bikeway" in the strict sense of the word (only as the way marked by the "bikeway" sign), we could involve in this category not even cycle lanes or cycle crossings. The abstract definition of bikeway as "separated way" malfunctions as well, as I mentioned above.

In general, our dispute isn't about whether to keep two concepts or to blend them someway. I had never disputed a specific meaning of each of them. The merits and subject of this dispute is only the "problem" whether should be the category "cycling routes" accesible as a subcategory of the category "bikeways" or it mustn't be. And I'm remarking once again, that such insertion can the helpfullnes of categorization make more better than worse. Thought it isn't as great advantage, to be worth such expansive disputes.

Concerning your sketch of User:Nillerdk/Category scheme cycling infrastructure,

  • it appears to be devious the proposal for remove of "Bikeways signs" category. "Bikeway signs" is evidently utterly different meaning than "Cycling signs". There exist many signs related to cycling than bikeway signs. Surprisingly, you recognize "end of bikeway signs" as a sign type, but you don't recognize "start of bikeway" like this. I suppose, this is some mistake.
  • cycling route isn't a part or a form of cycling infrastructure. Such enlistment is yet more problematic than into "Bikeways". The route is an abstract trajectory only – the infrastructural aspect of cycling route is just the real trail or road, so as a bikeway. (only a route sign is a part of infrastructure, but a route itself isn't).
  • a categorization structure should be not only hierarchical, but networking. The connections between themes have to be expressed in category structure at every level. It is unacceptable to miss out the direct connection between "Cycling route signs in Germany" and "Bikeways in Germany" or "Bikeway signs in Germany" and "Bikeways in Germany". Such category scheme can help to discover of an extracted line of connections, but we have to bear in mind, that number of connections aren't expressed in such scheme. If there exists an advanced category structure, it would be more usefull and transparent to dispute separate proposed changes.
  • creating of categories Category:Cycling signs by type and Category:Cycling signs by country is a good idea. Creating of Category:Bikeways by type is problematic, because there exists only one type of bikeway in strictu sense – the other subcategories are themes which are variously related to bikeways, but not types of bikeways.
  • by the way, I don't see, why you want treat categories like "Cyclist crossing" or "Bikeway bridges". I think, they belong to theme "bikeways" in broader meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we continue the discussion on one place (User:Nillerdk/Category scheme cycling infrastructure please. Thank you. [User:ŠJů|ŠJů]], I would appreciate your comments on the current version. --Foroa (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Last modified on 31 March 2009, at 07:05