Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > We're heading towards a day when everybody will have a routing application > on their mobile device or accessible elsewhere. So navigation is a > diminishing issue, and desirability for cycling is an increasing one. > Interesting thought. I don't know if I totally agree - I tend to carry a smartphone, *and* I have a GPS mounted on the handlebars, yet neither of those things is convenient as following actual signs or markings. > > If there is no cycling amenity of any kind, then it is just a route? How > does it differ from any other just by being signed? > I'm not sure I understand your question. By definition, a route is an abstraction on top of the physical world. "What route did you take to get there" - there's nothing physically distinguishing about a route. Maybe we're getting confused by unstated end goals. My interest in "routes" is having a map (much like opencyclemap) that elevates bike paths and other signage to the level of highways for cars. "Jump on the X trail, follow that till you get to the Y trail" etc. I think maybe some other people in this thread are focussing more on a "where is good to ride" use case? Definitely valuable, but is that the primary meaning of "route" in OSM? > If we start including roads with no cycling amenity, then we devalue every > other quality cycle route we mark. Because an end user can no longer > expect cycle amenity from a marked cycle route they become worthless to > most of our urban cyclist users who are looking for just that. Of course > amenity can come in many varied forms, so I don't mean cycle lanes. > Could you elaborate on what "amenity" means to you? Me, I'm assuming that if the council has put up "bicycle route" signs, it's because they've determined that that road is inherently better for bikes than some nearby street - both because it's safer and more comfortable, and because it goes somewhere mildly useful. > > However, I accept that things like railtrails, long distance cycle routes, > etc are exceptions here - where even poor amenity may want to be included > in the route. I'm not quite sure how we distinguish these type of trails > where people are trying to fill in the gaps, from some of the just plain > stupid mapped/signed routes that pass for cycle routes in some council > areas. Well, I guess they seem "stupid" if you're focusing on "where's good to ride". They're totally logical and sensible if you're focusing on "how do I get to point B". Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
On 4 December 2012 11:12, Steve Bennett wrote: > To me, a "bicycle route" is much more about navigability than desirability > for cycling. That is, when you "follow a bicycle route", it should be easy > to follow - based on signs, or good external (and official) documentation. > Whether it has painted bike lanes is irrelevant. > We're heading towards a day when everybody will have a routing application on their mobile device or accessible elsewhere. So navigation is a diminishing issue, and desirability for cycling is an increasing one. If there is no cycling amenity of any kind, then it is just a route? How does it differ from any other just by being signed? If we start including roads with no cycling amenity, then we devalue every other quality cycle route we mark. Because an end user can no longer expect cycle amenity from a marked cycle route they become worthless to most of our urban cyclist users who are looking for just that. Of course amenity can come in many varied forms, so I don't mean cycle lanes. However, I accept that things like railtrails, long distance cycle routes, etc are exceptions here - where even poor amenity may want to be included in the route. I'm not quite sure how we distinguish these type of trails where people are trying to fill in the gaps, from some of the just plain stupid mapped/signed routes that pass for cycle routes in some council areas. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
On 2 December 2012 09:10, Ben Kelley wrote: > * Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing > this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route. > * As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would > say this is not a cycle route. > * As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street > to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a > cycle route in the OSM sense. > * As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle > route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets > do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly > common. I would say this is not a cycle route. > Agreed. > * A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In > fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its "cycle > route". This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the > (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. > Take the Ryde example here. They provide a list of street names that provide a cycle route. Mostly no on-the-ground markings, but the streets do constitute a quiet cycle route. I'd mark it. If the source is not compatible with our licence then we don't copy it - this is independent of cycle route or otherwise. > * A section of street that does not have any markings connects other > streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). > Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a > cycle route. This also is tricky. > This is a cycle route. If it is the way cyclists use to connect two bits of infrastructure, as well as being mapped, this is convincing. > * A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. > I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it > is. > Here the use of the word "route" is confusing. Lots of council cycle routes are completely disconnected, and don't actually form any routes. Personally, I use the convention to still tag lcn=yes, but I don't add it to any route relation. However, I appreciate this isn't consistent, and I'd be prepared to change if a universal standard was adopted. > * A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to > ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known > cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is. > This is just so very rare that it is an edge case. But I don't think a bike lane or a bike lane sign necessarily makes a route. > * In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared > use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle > route. > Agreed. > * A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted > on the road. Signs every 500m saying "Cycle Route". Signs at every > intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes > this is a cycle route. > > Bearing in mind that the cycle route can finish way before the destination on the sign. My favourite example being the signposted route that points west down Parramatta Rd at the cnr of Catherine St and Parramatta Rd. It just isn't a route. > I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned > with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed > to "I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down." > There need to be some cycling amenity on the ground, or a street that logically (but map or by use) connects such cycling amenity. I can see an exception for known named routes (such as railtrails), which should be considered differently from council cycle facilities. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM, John Henderson wrote: > I take a simplistic approach to this. A road is a bicycle route if and > only if it has a bicycle lane (lanes if a two-way road). > > Simple, but not very helpful IMHO. cycleway=lane already captures that information. lcn=* and route relations should capture something beyond simple infrastructure. Incidentally, another case for discussion: Someone a while ago added "the Golden Trail" to OSM: marking a huge series of roads from near Adelaide to Ballarat (or Castlemaine - I forget) with a route relation and "rcn_ref=The Golden Trail". There was never going to be any "on the ground" signage or painting, but at the time at least there was a website and plans for brochures etc. So I was a bit ambivalent about it. Since then, the website has gone, and the whole concept seems to have disappeared, so I've been progressively removing them. Still a fair chunk remains: http://osm.org/go/uGTLrE?layers=C I assume we're all agreed that we wouldn't want this kind of thing in OSM? What if there was good external documentation? What if there were signs but no bike lanes? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
Hi Ben, Thanks very much for starting this conversation - yes, it's a messy one. Mostly because the European (and particularly UK) concept of "cycle route" hasn't really existed here. But it's still worth trying to fit into because lots of tools (especially OpenCycleMap) do support that concept. * Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route. > * As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would > say this is not a cycle route. > * As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street > to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a > cycle route in the OSM sense. > Agreed. > * As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle > route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets > do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly > common. I would say this is not a cycle route. > Disagree. If it's a designated cycle route - it's a cycle route. Could you elaborate on your reasoning? > > Tricky ones: > > * A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In > fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its "cycle > route". This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the > (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. > I'm not sure of the difference between this and the previous one. Is it that in this case, there are no markings *anywhere* for the route? > * A section of street that does not have any markings connects other > streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). > Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a > cycle route. This also is tricky. > I generally mark these, because it makes the map more useful. I think it's pedantry to leave little gaps in the map because those particular streets don't happen to have the markings shared by the rest of the route. Unhelpful pedantry, at that. > * A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. > I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it > is. > Yeah. Sometimes I mark these as LCN, sometimes I don't. If I can infer some sort of "route" thinking (ie, a series of streets or paths that connect), I'm more likely to. > * A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to > ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known > cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is. > Personally, I don't equate "bike lane" with "cycle route" in the way that others (notably John Henderson, below) do. Bike lanes are infrastructure. Cycle routes are, well, routes. Quiet streets can be part of a bike route, but not have bike lanes because they're quiet. Similarly, busy roads can have bike lanes without being part of a bike route. > > Easier ones: > > * In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared > use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle > route. > What do you mean by "connect" here? Simply that one path joins the other two? But yeah, probably. > * A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted > on the road. Signs every 500m saying "Cycle Route". Signs at every > intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes > this is a cycle route. > Again, I'm not really fussed what's painted on the ground. The indication of a cycle route, in my local council areas, is generally signs with a little bicycle, possibly the words "bicycle route" and an arrow. They frequently point down streets with no other bicycle infrastructure. Example: http://goo.gl/maps/M7FB9 I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned > with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed > to "I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down." > To me, a "bicycle route" is much more about navigability than desirability for cycling. That is, when you "follow a bicycle route", it should be easy to follow - based on signs, or good external (and official) documentation. Whether it has painted bike lanes is irrelevant. One of complications that arises, though, in inferring a route from signs is how far you allow between signs. What if the signs are far enough apart that there is ambiguity about which choice of streets in between is intended? etc... Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
Hi Matt, It seems we've reached the point of simply restating our views. I don't think yours represents consensus - but please discuss it on the main OSM talk list if you want. Steve On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Matt White wrote: > "Abandoned" makes it sounds like there are tracks in place for the > length of the line, just no trains running on it. > > But that's not the case - in the 4km the line used to run on there are 11 > remaining artifacts, the largest being a station building (old North > Carlton station), the smallest being a single 4 metre track section in > Edinburgh gardens, or the one remaining concrete pylon base. They are the > vestigial traces that need to be mapped. As for the rest, it's a mostly a > park now with a bike track along it (the bits that aren't are houses) ... > and that's what it should be mapped as. > > > > On 30/11/2012 6:23 PM, Mark Rennick wrote: > > Matt > > ** ** > > I believe abandoned railway lines should be mapped. > > ** ** > > If it is necessary to have a current physical feature to justify mapping, > then the railway formation (cut and fill earth works) generally remain, > particularly if the railway reserve has been retained as a rail trail, road > or linear park. > > ** ** > > *From:* Matt White [mailto:mattwh...@iinet.com.au ] > > *Sent:* Friday, 30 November 2012 7:31 AM > *To:* 'talk-au' > > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines > > ** ** > > Right. So if I delete the mapped rail line that doesn't exist, then remap > the individual pieces of track, the remaining point and weighbridge, three > overhead pylon mounts, one remaining station and one cutting that remains > as historical artifacts, then everyone is cool? > > If it exists on the ground now, it will get mapped. Otherwise, it won't. > > Matt > > On 29/11/2012 4:46 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > > Actually, the slope is slippery. People have made it about old roads. > There are people who have mapped old roads where they have been completely > developed over and no trace remains. > > > > Mapping the traces of an old rail line isn’t historical mapping. If there > are currently traces there then it’s mapping the present. > > > > > > *From:* Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:02 PM > *To:* Matt White > *Cc:* talk-au > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Matt White > wrote: > > Admin boundaries are a slightly different thing - they may be intangible > on the ground, but they are also current. We don't keep historical versions > of admin boundaries either > > The problem with the historical thing is that to my mind, it is a slippery > slope. There's a park near me that is currently, well, a park. But I know > that it was previously a quarry, and then a rubbish tip/landfill, cos there > is a sign saying so. But I certainly wouldn't tag the parks as a quarry or > landfill, because it isn't. It's a park > > > IMHO this slope is not slippery. Every time the "do we map historical > stuff" debate comes up, it's always about train lines. That is, we're still > at the top of this supposedly slippery slope, waiting to slide down. > Somehow, train lines are different. They just are. > > To reiterate what I said before in different words: we're not mapping "the > 1890 route of a long forgotten train line". We're mapping the vestigial > traces of a former line. And I'm absolutely not proposing to record any > information about when lines opened or closed, or were re-routed or > whatever. > > > Steve > > > > ** ** > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
