Hi Ash, it's great to see some interest in improving bicycle infrastructure in OSM!
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 15:46, Ash Logan <a...@heyquark.com> wrote: > Hey all! > TfNSW's recent waiver-signing gave us access to their Cycleways dataset > ( https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/cycleway-data ) which > includes shapefiles and information about cycle paths, shared paths, > cycle lanes, and shared lanes. The data is quite detailed ( see > > https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/resources/NSW%20Cycle%20Data%20Guide.pdf > ) covering everything from lit= to operator=. > There's been discussions about this dataset and its place in OSM on the > OSM World Discord server ( https://discord.gg/q6HnfNZ #asia-pacific ) > and we think we should present to you lot for discussion. Here's a > summary of the consensus so far: > > - The metadata about the ways is useful in OSM, but the shapefiles > aren't accurate enough for an import. The data is also too old to be > considered for a direct import (some ways date to 2009!) > For me it's more that we already have a lot of cycle infrastructure mapped which is constantly being updated and improved so if anything TfNSW data should be treated as a guide only and not the only source of information especially for indications of missing or removed cycle infrastructure. cycleway:width on a cycleway=shared_lane doesn't make a lot of sense to me, is that the road width? in which case it's just width=, or is it the lane width? After a quick scan it looks like a cycle route is marked as cycleway=shared_lane, though generally I'd only add cycleway=shared_lane if there is some kind of bicycle marking on the ground, is that reasonable?
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
