Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
Hi. I agree with Ian. Some of this comes down to a question of "What is a cycle route? " Most of the ones I have mapped (and there are quite a few in Sydney) are laid out by local government. I generally look for some evidence on the ground before I add lcn, and I often look at council maps to know where to start looking. With no evidence on the ground (signs, road markings, shared paths etc) I generally don't mark it as a route, even if some other map says it is. I considered if routes that appear on council maps, but with no infrastructure or signage are "proposed", but mostly I don't mark these at all. For councils that don't have their own well developed network of routes, I agree that sometimes you need to do some interpretation. I would not mark a street as lcn simply because it might be a good way to ride though. - Ben. On Apr 30, 2012 10:22 AM, "Ian Sergeant" wrote: > Hi, > > Seems like we have a fair bit to discuss if we ever manage to sit down > over a beer. I agree, however, that overall most of these differences > are unlikely to make a substantial difference to the map. > > However, returning to the two key points on cycle routes in AU. > > Firstly, mapping personal preference "unofficial" cycle routes. We > both seem to agree that there are potentially a large amount of these. > Every road on the map and track on the map could be somebody's cycle > route from somewhere to somewhere else. We've seen on sites like > bikely how prolific these cycle routes can be, with around 9000 cycle > routes crossing the Sydney area alone. We agree that it wouldn't be a > good thing if there were this many cycle routes in OSM. > > Once we start allowing such routes, neither of us have any idea how > the number will be contained. You believe that this shouldn't stop > us, because the community will work out a way if and when it becomes > an issue, and it may never actually become an issue in OSM (with more > sophisticated mappers than bikely :-) I believe this is a very > slippery slope, and we're doing the project a disservice by > introducing unverifiable data without any guidelines for how we would > limit its use. > > I think we would need a broad consensus to introduce cycle routes > based on individual preference, as well as documentation on how when > and how they would be used, and reasoning on how we can avoid the > obvious pitfalls. We haven't seen any of these yet. > > My issue here is purely the slippery slope and verifiability. I may > actually prefer a cycle map produced by OSMers producing cycling maps > by survey then the poor excuse for routes coming from "authoritative > sources". However, I think the best way of achieving this is to add > the infrastructure, and rely on automation to produce preferred > routes. Otherwise I see it turning into a mess. > > Secondly, the subjective evaluation of published cycle routes. Here I > think I'm definitely on shakier ground, but I'd like to see a good > solution. There are three different levels of institutions that > publish cycle routes. State government authorities, local government > authorities, and local cycling groups. In general, I think adding > these routes to OSM is a reasonable endeavour, however, we should > reconsider in a three circumstances. > > 1. Where the path or road referenced by the route doesn't exist or > isn't accessible. I know this sounds a little odd, but in quite a few > cases the route is either out of date, or the infrastructure is still > in a planning phase, or it has been removed or damaged beyond any > utility, or it has been incorporated into private property, or signs > and barriers on the ground exclude cyclists. This is a direct appeal > to the "on the ground" mantra. The route can be defined on the > "official" website as a cycle route, but why would be included in our > data if you can't actually cycle on it? To include this data on the > basis it is "official", would seem like bloody-mindedness. > > 2. Where the path or road referenced is indicated by a sign only, and > no cycle facilities or infrastructure exist on the ground. Quite > simply, in Australia the existence of a bicycle sign doesn't indicate > a route. Map the sign if you like, by all means, but don't map a > cycle route unless there is some other supporting evidence of a cycle > route. > > 3. At the furthest extreme, where there are no cycle facilities on a > section of a route, the route is clearly not residential or off-road, > and the road is no better as a route that the roads either side of it > (not quicker, not safer, not less trafficked, not flatter) then I > think we should consider omitting it. If the cyclist is no worse off > just plotting the more direct road linking two cycle route sections, > then we're adding nothing of value. Again, OSMs strength is current, > on-the-ground analysis, and we should make use of it. The official > cycle maps are easily accessible to those who want the unabridged > ver
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > route from somewhere to somewhere else. We've seen on sites like > bikely how prolific these cycle routes can be, with around 9000 cycle > routes crossing the Sydney area alone. We agree that it wouldn't be a Worth pointing out that sites like bikely (last time I looked) and gpsies don't actually show a network view, so it's hard for people to avoid redundancies. > good thing if there were this many cycle routes in OSM. > > Once we start allowing such routes, neither of us have any idea how > the number will be contained. You believe that this shouldn't stop > us, because the community will work out a way if and when it becomes > an issue, and it may never actually become an issue in OSM (with more > sophisticated mappers than bikely :-) I believe this is a very > slippery slope, and we're doing the project a disservice by > introducing unverifiable data without any guidelines for how we would > limit its use. That's a fair statement of our positions. > I think we would need a broad consensus to introduce cycle routes > based on individual preference, as well as documentation on how when My experience of OSM is that the mental model "nothing happens until we all agree it should happen" is inaccurate. I used to think that was the case, mostly from experience in projects like Wikipedia. (In Wikipedia, if people started creating articles that violated the rules, they would just be deleted, and the users blocked.) In OSM, you seem to get the opposite: lots of very quiet editing which would raise a lot of eyebrows if anyone was aware of it. An example would be the "golden route" bike route that someone added that goes all the way from Mt Gambier (from memory?) to Castlemaine. Whoever added it didn't ask whether it was a good idea. In retrospect, it's not. But that's the way things are done, apparently. > and how they would be used, and reasoning on how we can avoid the > obvious pitfalls. We haven't seen any of these yet. I think responding to actual issues sometimes works better than trying to prevent problems. > My issue here is purely the slippery slope and verifiability. I may > actually prefer a cycle map produced by OSMers producing cycling maps > by survey then the poor excuse for routes coming from "authoritative > sources". However, I think the best way of achieving this is to add > the infrastructure, and rely on automation to produce preferred > routes. Otherwise I see it turning into a mess. I'm still not sure how "verifiability" leads you to accept ground-based surveys but reject authoritative published routes. (Or maybe I just hate your conclusion, so I assume your reasoning is bad, too.) > Secondly, the subjective evaluation of published cycle routes. Here I > think I'm definitely on shakier ground, but I'd like to see a good > solution. There are three different levels of institutions that > publish cycle routes. State government authorities, local government > authorities, and local cycling groups. In general, I think adding > these routes to OSM is a reasonable endeavour, however, we should Ok - so routes published by community cycling groups (eg, Boorondara Bicycle Users Group) are ok, but routes published by individuals (or not published) aren't. Pretty reasonable in many cases - but what about where areas where none of the above publish any routes at all? > reconsider in a three circumstances. > > 1. Where the path or road referenced by the route doesn't exist or > isn't accessible. I know this sounds a little odd, but in quite a few > cases the route is either out of date, or the infrastructure is still > in a planning phase, or it has been removed or damaged beyond any > utility, or it has been incorporated into private property, or signs > and barriers on the ground exclude cyclists. This is a direct appeal > to the "on the ground" mantra. The route can be defined on the > "official" website as a cycle route, but why would be included in our > data if you can't actually cycle on it? To include this data on the > basis it is "official", would seem like bloody-mindedness. If you physically can't cycle there yet, we'd mark it proposed or construction. eg: http://osm.org/go/uGtP3q_gd-?layers=C If there's a public road but it lacks a planned bike lane, I'd still put the route there. If the route used to be cyclable but is now inaccessible (or the signage removed or whatever), I'd probably remove it. Agreed there's no value in including routes which aren't actually rideable. > > 2. Where the path or road referenced is indicated by a sign only, and > no cycle facilities or infrastructure exist on the ground. Quite > simply, in Australia the existence of a bicycle sign doesn't indicate > a route. Map the sign if you like, by all means, but don't map a > cycle route unless there is some other supporting evidence of a cycle > route. Strong disagreement from me. > 3. At the furthest extreme, where there a
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
Hi, Seems like we have a fair bit to discuss if we ever manage to sit down over a beer. I agree, however, that overall most of these differences are unlikely to make a substantial difference to the map. However, returning to the two key points on cycle routes in AU. Firstly, mapping personal preference "unofficial" cycle routes. We both seem to agree that there are potentially a large amount of these. Every road on the map and track on the map could be somebody's cycle route from somewhere to somewhere else. We've seen on sites like bikely how prolific these cycle routes can be, with around 9000 cycle routes crossing the Sydney area alone. We agree that it wouldn't be a good thing if there were this many cycle routes in OSM. Once we start allowing such routes, neither of us have any idea how the number will be contained. You believe that this shouldn't stop us, because the community will work out a way if and when it becomes an issue, and it may never actually become an issue in OSM (with more sophisticated mappers than bikely :-) I believe this is a very slippery slope, and we're doing the project a disservice by introducing unverifiable data without any guidelines for how we would limit its use. I think we would need a broad consensus to introduce cycle routes based on individual preference, as well as documentation on how when and how they would be used, and reasoning on how we can avoid the obvious pitfalls. We haven't seen any of these yet. My issue here is purely the slippery slope and verifiability. I may actually prefer a cycle map produced by OSMers producing cycling maps by survey then the poor excuse for routes coming from "authoritative sources". However, I think the best way of achieving this is to add the infrastructure, and rely on automation to produce preferred routes. Otherwise I see it turning into a mess. Secondly, the subjective evaluation of published cycle routes. Here I think I'm definitely on shakier ground, but I'd like to see a good solution. There are three different levels of institutions that publish cycle routes. State government authorities, local government authorities, and local cycling groups. In general, I think adding these routes to OSM is a reasonable endeavour, however, we should reconsider in a three circumstances. 1. Where the path or road referenced by the route doesn't exist or isn't accessible. I know this sounds a little odd, but in quite a few cases the route is either out of date, or the infrastructure is still in a planning phase, or it has been removed or damaged beyond any utility, or it has been incorporated into private property, or signs and barriers on the ground exclude cyclists. This is a direct appeal to the "on the ground" mantra. The route can be defined on the "official" website as a cycle route, but why would be included in our data if you can't actually cycle on it? To include this data on the basis it is "official", would seem like bloody-mindedness. 2. Where the path or road referenced is indicated by a sign only, and no cycle facilities or infrastructure exist on the ground. Quite simply, in Australia the existence of a bicycle sign doesn't indicate a route. Map the sign if you like, by all means, but don't map a cycle route unless there is some other supporting evidence of a cycle route. 3. At the furthest extreme, where there are no cycle facilities on a section of a route, the route is clearly not residential or off-road, and the road is no better as a route that the roads either side of it (not quicker, not safer, not less trafficked, not flatter) then I think we should consider omitting it. If the cyclist is no worse off just plotting the more direct road linking two cycle route sections, then we're adding nothing of value. Again, OSMs strength is current, on-the-ground analysis, and we should make use of it. The official cycle maps are easily accessible to those who want the unabridged version. I'm aware of the contradiction that you see between not including personal preference cycle routes, and yet using subjective analysis to determine whether to include official ones. However, I'm hoping some of the contradiction is removed when you look at the reasoning. Ian. On 27 April 2012 17:08, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: >> Cycle and walking routes get relocated, torn up, fences put across them. > > ...and there's no way we can keep up with such changes. > >> Park names? The name that is on the park prevails - quite often >> different to other sources. > > No way. Signage is frequently a low priority from organisations that > maintain parks, trails, etc. Just on bike paths, I've seen as many as > 3 different names signed for the same route - in addition to names > provided on websites or other publications. > > The name on a sign at the physical site is just one name amongst many. > >> On the ground doesn't mean we can't use other sources. It just means