Re: [talk-au] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths
I'll raise you bicycle=designated ;; width=0.15 ;; in City of Sydney two years ago even... old South Sydney Council playing funny buggers with the regulations to make cycling lawful either side of a major road where the lane-width footpath was breached by a cul-de-sac. NSW's specifications for bicycle infrastructure are… interesting. But far too often they've resulted in sub-standard infrastructure due to engineering allowances, and the habit of building transport or commuter infrastructure as shared leisure paths with meandering that reduces the practicable speed well below the design maximum of 30 km/h. There are redesignated footpaths I prefer to some RMS bicycle "infrastructure." Lane-width footpaths without side streets for example. One concrete tagging example: I'm happy with the eventual results of the editing over the difference between https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174743358 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183802804 The former is designated and pleasant to ride on (more so than Lenthall) The latter is a standard footpath narrowed to duckboard width by obstructions, but legal to ride on because of how Shared Use Path regulations work. bicycle=designated/yes/permissive for the lawful right to cycle smoothness, width, for the path quality People seem to be in general agreement on what infrastructure constitutes track sidewalk / footpath cycleway even if it is a summation of who uses it for what, how wide, how it was designed, etc. Sam. On 4 April 2016 at 09:25, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Well, for NSW at least there are some guidelines for what constitutes > a cycleway.. > > > http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/documents/technical-manuals/nswbicyclev12aa_i.pdf > > In other states, that permit cycling on footpaths, it also makes sense > to distinguish what is a footpath on which you are permitted to cycle, > from a shared path. > > So, its not just a cultural habit. It's a tagging style that conveys > the nature of the facility. > > Thinking of Botany Bay Council in particular, here. highway=footway, > bicycle=designated, width=.7 > > Ian. > > On 3 April 2016 at 13:01, Sam Russell wrote: > > On 3/09/2015 1:35 PM, Chris wrote: > >> Hello, I am new to this group and have a question about pedestrian and > >> bicycle shared paths. I can't find anything in the archives. > >> > >> In NSW, shared paths fall into two broad categories: > > > > You're confusing highway= and bicycle=yes / bicycle=designated which > relate > > to render hinting and the lawful uses with the physical infrastructure. > > > > > > bicycle=yes can be on stairs. dirt. It is a lawful right to use, ie: > the > > road related area extended from or towards a Shared Use Path sign, Sep > Path > > sign, Cycleway sign (bicycle only), council reserve / park non-road > related > > area (IANAL on that one) etc. > > > >> (1) Sidewalk footpaths that have been designated as shared paths. In > > > > Tag the material features and let routing software figure it out > > > > width=0.6 or width=0.8 or width=1 or width=1.2 > > > > smoothness=excellent; good; intermediate; bad > > > > surface=concrete etc. > > > > maxspeed=50 ; 40 ; 10 > > > > maxspeed:advisory=10 > > > > maxspeed:practical=5;10;15 > > > > incline=up;down;15%;etc > > > > traffic_calming=bollard;chicane > > > > steps=yes > > > > ramp:bicycle=no > > > > > > I've noticed that people have a cultural habit of tagging highway=footway > > for paths narrower than 1.5m constructed as footpaths and later > designated, > > whereas paths >=1.5m regardless tend to stay as highway=cycleway when > > tagged. > > > > > > thanks, > > Sam. > > > > > > ___ > > Talk-au mailing list > > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Distinguishing between low-friction and high-friction shared paths
On 3/09/2015 1:35 PM, Chris wrote: >* Hello, I am new to this group and have a question about pedestrian and *>* bicycle shared paths. I can't find anything in the archives. *>>* In NSW, shared paths fall into two broad categories: * You're confusing highway= and bicycle=yes / bicycle=designated which relate to render hinting and the lawful uses with the physical infrastructure. bicycle=yes can be on stairs. dirt. It is a lawful right to use, ie: the road related area extended from or towards a Shared Use Path sign, Sep Path sign, Cycleway sign (bicycle only), council reserve / park non-road related area (IANAL on that one) etc. >* (1) Sidewalk footpaths that have been designated as shared paths. In * Tag the material features and let routing software figure it out width=0.6 or width=0.8 or width=1 or width=1.2 smoothness=excellent; good; intermediate; bad surface=concrete etc. maxspeed=50 ; 40 ; 10 maxspeed:advisory=10 maxspeed:practical=5;10;15 incline=up;down;15%;etc traffic_calming=bollard;chicane steps=yes ramp:bicycle=no I've noticed that people have a cultural habit of tagging highway=footway for paths narrower than 1.5m constructed as footpaths and later designated, whereas paths >=1.5m regardless tend to stay as highway=cycleway when tagged. thanks, Sam. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] A new user's edits
Could someone have a look over CoolDude16501 's edits? The railway line running under the Pacific Ocean looks suspect, and the user's response to an email isn't heartening. As a new user myself, I'm not equipped to deal with the welcoming, investigation or results elements of this users' edits. Thanks, Sam. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] RMS (NSW)'s Bicycle infrastructure map in beta ( http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/maps/cycleways.html )
Ben wrote: > I had a quick look at it this morning, and it seems a bit inaccurate in > areas where I know OSM is good. (Ashfield, Marrickville, Burwood) > Essentially routes marked on the map that are not cycle routes and actual > cycle routes missing. > > Not surprising for the RMS, their data or their support of cycling related works inside RMS. Also, as you note below, not surprising for cycling infrastructure. > That said, there are probably places where it lists real cycle routes that > OSM does not have, but possibly it is no more useful than council maps in > this regard. Either way you need to survey, but proving that something > isn't a cycle route tends to be more time consuming than proving something > is. > The two things I am interested in mapping are legal designations that don't appear on other maps—riding out the bounds of "Shared Path" designations where these are rideable. I think these designations often provide necessary bridging infrastructure such as the Shared Path on the south side of Cleveland street linking Moore Park to the Bourke Street cycleway. And secondly, confirming claims by authorities that routes or infrastructures exist. I think it could help to clarify some of these things over time, and then write them up for the wiki. I do the first because I often feel ashamed to make a logical decision to use what appears to me to be a footpath, only to discover months later when wandering that it is in fact designated as a shared path, but that the signage is located 1200m away behind six corners in the continuous path. What is a OSM highway=cycleway? A 2m minimum width path with any designation excluding motorists and permitting cyclists? ( http://www.mackay.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/14780/15.08_-_Cycleway_and_Pathway_Design_V2.pdf) Cleveland street south would meet that, but shouldn't be marked as such because of its sight lines, etc. What if the primary purpose of a path as narrow as 80cm in relation to cycling infrastructure is linking dedicated cycleways with heavily sharrowed "routes."? (I'm still not sure about what to do with centre/right of lane bicycle marked roads that make sense to cycle on). In an ideal world the legal designation, customary use, way surface and smoothness, way width would all be available. Two further questions: I know that in the distant past (before the blue bicycle symbols on telegraph poles, even) councils tried to claim that bicycle advisory signs marked on roads indicate a route. This is fairly ridiculous, and the modern signage guidelines are better (but not implemented). It would be good to get a citation for this in relation to discovering / refuting declared routes. The idea of fully compliant routes in Australia is ridiculous. While this is a point of contention, verifiability of routes is needed. I'd put the level of refutation at a discontinuity of infrastructure and markings, with no signage, and with no custom or practice amongst cyclists of using the route. Wilson St Darlington is a great example of an existing route. It is a highly trafficked customary route, with continuous infrastructure, and a presence on council maps indicating a route. Without either the infrastructure OR the high customary traffic, I wouldn't mark it as a route. Ian wrote, I'm sure we can do better. >> > I'm sure we can. RMS's data acts as a spotting guide at best. > I was following apmon's remapping idea on the weekend, and for each >> suburb pair in Sydney produced a travel distance for car routing >> (using all motor vehicle accessible roads) and a "quiet cycle" routing >> (using only highway=residential|cycleway, cycleway=*, lcn=*, rcn=*), >> then sorted the resulting grid in terms of % difference. >> >> I'm yet to come to terms with exactly what the numbers mean (if >> anything :-), but I think there are certainly some pointers to further >> urban exploration in there. >> > We can use this to get average "directness" values, and look at outliers. We can then determine if outliers are due to missing infrastructure (missing cut throughs, unmapped lcns). While RMS/Councils have a bad score for directness in many projects, even they will come towards an "average" directness value. (As shockingly indirect as such a routing may be). thanks—the RMS maps gives plenty of rides to plan, Sam. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] RMS (NSW)'s Bicycle infrastructure map in beta ( http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/maps/cycleways.html )
Hi, RMS is now supplying an "infrastructure" map with all of the usual fun and follies: http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/maps/cycleways.html All of the usual wonder and enjoyment of dealing with the RMS on bicycle related issues, now in one map! thanks, Sam. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycle Routes & Bicycle advisory road markings (Was: Marrickville Cycle Routes (Was: Re: Redaction recovery))
Dear Ian, In contrast to: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2319564 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2319563 and > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2319565 which are continuously marked with the blue route marker, my previous experience of L8/L13 in Marrickville indicates that marking will be sporadic (and therefore "fun"). It would be great if someone knew the AS1742 code for the outdated blue bicycle route markers, because key:traffic_sign follows the format: > key:traffic_sign=AU:AS1742.1-YEAR:Code In the meantime I'm happy to code them: > key:traffic_sign=AU:blue bike route * * * As another bicycle related question, could other mappers opine on bicycle advisory road markings, in particular could we discuss the following points: Bicycle advisory road markings in the centres of lanes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking) > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23392343 (Between Elizabeth and Regent) I would propose we treat these as infrastructure with cycleway = shared or cycleway = sharrow Users at sydneycyclist appear to value the effect of these of vehicle behaviour. Bicycle advisory road markings in the door zone, or under parked cars I would propose we ignore these as infrastructure, and only attend to them as proof of "map only" lcns where the marking is consistent over the council's mapped route opinions? yours, Sam R. On 1 August 2012 10:02, Ian Sergeant wrote: > On 31 July 2012 11:49, Sam Russell wrote: > >> Where route numbers are in repair or in repair but separated by clear >> intervening route signs, keep the route ref and name. >> Where route numbers are in disrepair copy key:ref=L# to key:old_ref=L#? >> >> My Saturday ride is unplanned right now, I'm happy to go chasing routing >> and route identity signs in Marrickville. >> > > If you decide to go, by all means map the location of any signs you find > with key=traffic_sign. > > My feeling is that following any of the numbered routes by means of > following the equivalent signs isn't doable any longer. > > Otherwise, I'll be interested to see if Ben gets a response from the > council. > > Ian. > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Marrickville Cycle Routes (Was: Re: Redaction recovery)
Ian wrote, > On the subject of Marrickville cycle routes, I know they were one of the > only councils in Sydney with nicely numbered routes from point to point. > However, the route numbers have gone off their web page. The few route > numbers that remain around the LGA are in disrepair, and most have gone. > Do we want to remap Marrickville using what I think is now an outdated > route numbering scheme, or bring the mapping inline with the rest of Sydney. Where route numbers are in repair or in repair but separated by clear intervening route signs, keep the route ref and name. Where route numbers are in disrepair copy key:ref=L# to key:old_ref=L#? My Saturday ride is unplanned right now, I'm happy to go chasing routing and route identity signs in Marrickville. yours, Sam R. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
