[talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
I've recently moved back to Lake Macquarie after some years in Canberra, and I'm delighted to find that there are more cycle paths around the central coast and Lake Macquarie than I was previously aware of. Unfortunately many of them are either incomplete or disconnected from each other. I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths into excellent recreational routes. For instance the recently opened Fernleigh (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there is a great path around Green Point. I want to tag a route (probably as "lcn") through the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to join these rides together. To my knowledge there is no official council-endorsed cycle route. I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, because it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "actually on the ground". I feel, however, that we have an opportunity to scout out optimal connections and start using them for cycling now, while we lobby councils to make such routes "official". I would choose a tagging scheme along the lines of "network=lcn" with "status=unofficial" or something so that these routes could be located by a search algorithm if needed. I've spent a while looking around the web, and there are no decent cycling maps of the region to be found. OSM and OpenCycleMap would be a superb resource if we took the liberty of tagging "desired routes" such as I have outlined. How do you feel about this suggestion? - Lachlan ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
I can see your argument, and no doubt having useful cycle routes available is a good thing. However, I don't think personal ad-hoc cycle routes should be added to OSM. It is a slippery slope, and OSM can't accommodation everyone's ideal connecting route. Instead, I'd add the information (speed limits, road widths, residential nature, cycle facilities (lanes, etc)) that would allow a typical cycle router to be able to identify the connecting route between the two cycleways. Personally, I think long term this is a better way to go anyway. Some of the official cycle routes (particularly in Sydney) have poor cycle facilities, and in the case of the currently tagged Concord to CBD cycleway IMO is downright deadly. So many people have different opinions on what makes a good cycle route for them, lets identify the features and get them all into OSM, and then lets optimise the software to find the best way. There are lots of services to map personal favourite rides (bikely, mapmyride, etc). Ian. On 22 April 2012 22:09, Lachlan Rogers wrote: > I've recently moved back to Lake Macquarie after some years in Canberra, > and I'm delighted to find that there are more cycle paths around the > central coast and Lake Macquarie than I was previously aware of. > Unfortunately many of them are either incomplete or disconnected from each > other. > > I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths > into excellent recreational routes. For instance the recently opened > Fernleigh (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there > is a great path around Green Point. I want to tag a route (probably as > "lcn") through the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to > join these rides together. To my knowledge there is no official > council-endorsed cycle route. > > I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, because > it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "actually on the > ground". I feel, however, that we have an opportunity to scout out optimal > connections and start using them for cycling now, while we lobby councils > to make such routes "official". I would choose a tagging scheme along the > lines of "network=lcn" with "status=unofficial" or something so that these > routes could be located by a search algorithm if needed. > > I've spent a while looking around the web, and there are no decent cycling > maps of the region to be found. OSM and OpenCycleMap would be a superb > resource if we took the liberty of tagging "desired routes" such as I have > outlined. > > How do you feel about this suggestion? > > - Lachlan > > ___ > 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
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
Hi. I agree with Ian. Routing sites should be able to connect up disconnected SUPs in a sensible manner. As an aside, it would be nice if sites like Bikely supported OSM as a background. - Ben. On Apr 23, 2012 9:07 AM, "Ian Sergeant" wrote: > I can see your argument, and no doubt having useful cycle routes available > is a good thing. > > However, I don't think personal ad-hoc cycle routes should be added to > OSM. It is a slippery slope, and OSM can't accommodation everyone's ideal > connecting route. > > Instead, I'd add the information (speed limits, road widths, residential > nature, cycle facilities (lanes, etc)) that would allow a typical cycle > router to be able to identify the connecting route between the two > cycleways. > > Personally, I think long term this is a better way to go anyway. Some of > the official cycle routes (particularly in Sydney) have poor cycle > facilities, and in the case of the currently tagged Concord to CBD cycleway > IMO is downright deadly. So many people have different opinions on what > makes a good cycle route for them, lets identify the features and get them > all into OSM, and then lets optimise the software to find the best way. > > There are lots of services to map personal favourite rides (bikely, > mapmyride, etc). > > Ian. > > On 22 April 2012 22:09, Lachlan Rogers wrote: > >> I've recently moved back to Lake Macquarie after some years in Canberra, >> and I'm delighted to find that there are more cycle paths around the >> central coast and Lake Macquarie than I was previously aware of. >> Unfortunately many of them are either incomplete or disconnected from each >> other. >> >> I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths >> into excellent recreational routes. For instance the recently opened >> Fernleigh (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there >> is a great path around Green Point. I want to tag a route (probably as >> "lcn") through the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to >> join these rides together. To my knowledge there is no official >> council-endorsed cycle route. >> >> I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, >> because it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "actually >> on the ground". I feel, however, that we have an opportunity to scout out >> optimal connections and start using them for cycling now, while we lobby >> councils to make such routes "official". I would choose a tagging scheme >> along the lines of "network=lcn" with "status=unofficial" or something so >> that these routes could be located by a search algorithm if needed. >> >> I've spent a while looking around the web, and there are no decent >> cycling maps of the region to be found. OSM and OpenCycleMap would be a >> superb resource if we took the liberty of tagging "desired routes" such as >> I have outlined. >> >> How do you feel about this suggestion? >> >> - Lachlan >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
Thanks for your wise comments, Ian. I do clearly see the problem with individuals tagging up their own "favourite" routes into OSM. I will put my personal rides on bikely, and keep adding objective data to OSM. This afternoon I have discovered a cycle planning document from Newcastle City Council that outlines existing and proposed routes. They even use the "regional" and "local" terminology, so tagging current routes should be straightforward. I am baffled by how difficult it is to find information of this kind from Lake Macquarie and Newcastle councils. They are keen to brag about the Fernleigh track, but seem intent on hiding all other cycling info! I have also found a map of what LM Council considers to be existing cycle routes. Some of these must be fairly "faint on the ground" in terms of cycle infrastructure or signage, but I will follow their map closely and tag existing routes. There is one more project that I have only just discovered: the NSW Coastline Cycleway. Apparently cycleway routes exist for about 300 kms of the 1400 already, but I can't find anywhere that lists them. I have learned that the Fernleigh Track is part of this state route, but that's about it. I will continue researching, because that is something that CAN go on OpenStreetMap and it would be really useful. I am pleased to discover that these councils are thinking about cycle routes, but I wish they would make the info more accessible. - Lachlan On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Ben Kelley wrote: > Hi. > > I agree with Ian. > > Routing sites should be able to connect up disconnected SUPs in a sensible > manner. > > As an aside, it would be nice if sites like Bikely supported OSM as a > background. > > - Ben. > On Apr 23, 2012 9:07 AM, "Ian Sergeant" wrote: > >> I can see your argument, and no doubt having useful cycle routes >> available is a good thing. >> >> However, I don't think personal ad-hoc cycle routes should be added to >> OSM. It is a slippery slope, and OSM can't accommodation everyone's ideal >> connecting route. >> >> Instead, I'd add the information (speed limits, road widths, residential >> nature, cycle facilities (lanes, etc)) that would allow a typical cycle >> router to be able to identify the connecting route between the two >> cycleways. >> >> Personally, I think long term this is a better way to go anyway. Some of >> the official cycle routes (particularly in Sydney) have poor cycle >> facilities, and in the case of the currently tagged Concord to CBD cycleway >> IMO is downright deadly. So many people have different opinions on what >> makes a good cycle route for them, lets identify the features and get them >> all into OSM, and then lets optimise the software to find the best way. >> >> There are lots of services to map personal favourite rides (bikely, >> mapmyride, etc). >> >> Ian. >> >> On 22 April 2012 22:09, Lachlan Rogers wrote: >> >>> I've recently moved back to Lake Macquarie after some years in Canberra, >>> and I'm delighted to find that there are more cycle paths around the >>> central coast and Lake Macquarie than I was previously aware of. >>> Unfortunately many of them are either incomplete or disconnected from each >>> other. >>> >>> I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths >>> into excellent recreational routes. For instance the recently opened >>> Fernleigh (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there >>> is a great path around Green Point. I want to tag a route (probably as >>> "lcn") through the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to >>> join these rides together. To my knowledge there is no official >>> council-endorsed cycle route. >>> >>> I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, >>> because it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "actually >>> on the ground". I feel, however, that we have an opportunity to scout out >>> optimal connections and start using them for cycling now, while we lobby >>> councils to make such routes "official". I would choose a tagging scheme >>> along the lines of "network=lcn" with "status=unofficial" or something so >>> that these routes could be located by a search algorithm if needed. >>> >>> I've spent a while looking around the web, and there are no decent >>> cycling maps of the region to be found. OSM and OpenCycleMap would be a >>> superb resource if we took the liberty of tagging "desired routes" such as >>> I have outlined. >>> >>> How do you feel about this suggestion? >>> >>> - Lachlan >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetm
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
Hi Lachlan, On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Lachlan Rogers wrote: > I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths into > excellent recreational routes. For instance the recently opened Fernleigh > (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there is a great > path around Green Point. I want to tag a route (probably as "lcn") through > the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to join these rides > together. To my knowledge there is no official council-endorsed cycle > route. > > I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, because > it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "actually on the > ground". I feel, however, that we have an opportunity to scout out optimal > connections and start using them for cycling now, while we lobby councils to > make such routes "official". I would choose a tagging scheme along the > lines of "network=lcn" with "status=unofficial" or something so that these > routes could be located by a search algorithm if needed. IMHO we have to be pragmatic here. Official infrastructure for such routes is miles behind the equivalent in the UK, Holland, Germany, etc. Signage is frequently lacking even on council-endorsed routes, and naming is hopelessly inconsistent. Therefore, OSM already performs a bit of an interpretive role. So, I think your "status=unofficial" tagging is good. If (and that's a big IF) the "slippery slope" ever actually happens (eg, there are several competing "unofficial" routes, creating a mess), then we should reconsider. But overall, I think the benefit in tagging a few "unofficial" links between official routes is greater than the harm done. We might also consider making "unofficial" a more widely used OSM tag. But be aware that some councils use terms like "informal" to mean an official route which is on road without bike lanes. (Btw, the "map what's on the ground" mantra is really inaccurate - we map tons of stuff which is not "on the ground" in any literal or even metaphorical sense. It's not a good rule of thumb.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
Greetings all, occasional mapper, first time poster. Lachlan, I live in Newcastle and cycle commute to Woodrising and have mapped a few bits and pieces around the lake. I personally would like to see your style of cycling routes on OCM but understand the "slippery slope argument" detailed below that would arise from different interpretations of the same route. For example when I link the Fernleigh track to Green Point the best route for me on my road bike is different to the route I take the kids on which involves a fair bit of footpath riding to avoid traffic hot spots. If you are interested I have been writing some pages for a website with links to maps on bikely, photos and route descriptions. (A project that gives a good excuse to go out cycling). Unfortunately I have not managed to make my webhosting service work, but if you send me an email (adrianplask...@hotmail.com) I will show you what I have done so far - I would appreciate comments and we could swap notes. The newcastle cycleways movement has some maps as well. Ben and Ian, perhaps you or others can help me - With regard to tagging I find that a lot of information gets lost in this process. For example I have mapped some of the minor tracks around Belmont Lagoon that allow you to extend the Fernleigh track south to Swansea without going down the highway. I know which of these paths are suitable a road bike, a mountain bike, hybrid , young kids etc, but this information is lost in my mapping with the tags dirt/gravel/width in Potlach - is there a way of making this more nuanced? I imagine every mapper knows the same things about their tracks, but the reality is (I think) that if you have not visited the area it is impossible to know if a 1m dirt path is strewn with boulders and tree roots excluding hybrids or an easy well formed path for a 6 year old. I have found some MTB tagging guidelines in the wiki but these seem more suited to formal mountain bike parks like perhaps glenrock, and I have not found how to apply them in Potlach. If I downoad one of the other editors will these appear, and will they be renderd on the standard map ? More generally to the forum thanks to all those serious mappers who have contributed so much - I have been reading the posts over the last few months from time to time and have been amazed at the amount of work and passion that have been put into this project - its great. regards adrian > From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 58, Issue 9 > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:00:06 +0100 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie? > (Lachlan Rogers) >2. Re: Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie? > (Ian Sergeant) >3. Re: Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie? > (Ben Kelley) > > > ------------------ > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:09:04 +1000 > From: Lachlan Rogers > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake > Macquarie? > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I've recently moved back to Lake Macquarie after some years in Canberra, > and I'm delighted to find that there are more cycle paths around the > central coast and Lake Macquarie than I was previously aware of. > Unfortunately many of them are either incomplete or disconnected from each > other. > > I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths > into excellent recreational routes. For instance the recently opened > Fernleigh (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there > is a great path around Green Point. I want to tag a route (probably as > "lcn") through the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to > join these rides together. To my knowledge there is no official > council-endorsed cycle route. > > I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, because > it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
On 24 April 2012 11:23, Steve Bennett wrote: > (Btw, the "map what's on the ground" mantra is really inaccurate - we > map tons of stuff which is not "on the ground" in any literal or even > metaphorical sense. It's not a good rule of thumb.) I disagree. The "map what's on the ground" is a good mantra. It solves 90% plus of contentious mapping issues, by making a decision to map what is there. It also guides us towards verifiability - which is a key tenet of any shared piece of work. If you can't verify it, then ultimately we can't map it cooperatively. Cycle routes are tricky, and we haven't got there yet. Ask three different road routing algorithms the for a best route, and expect similar answers. With cycle routes, that won't be the case, and many different factors need to go into the weighting, and isolating the routing factors and their weighting is developing. And in my opinion the solution to this is to cling to "Map What Is On The Ground". If there is a cycle facility there, shoulder space, shared lane, reduced speed limit, paved cut-thru - these are all things that will help me get from A to B safely. Unfortunately, just being on a RMS or council approved cycle route won't. Often roads that are the most suited for cycling aren't on an "official" cycle route, just because they don't connect two destinations. Other linking sections are included on cycle routes even though they are dangerous for cyclists. In this case, there is a user identified safe route connecting two cycleways, that is different to the council proposed route, and the proposed council route has no useful facilities. I'd be using the Map What Is On The Ground mantra here. I wouldn't map the possibly proposed council route with no facilities. What is the point of that? I'd be mapping the facilities that make the safe route a good cycle route. I'd then be testing out different cycle routers to ensure that in their "safe route mode", they recommend the best route. If they don't, I'd be investigating why, and seeing whether the problem lies with the tagging, the routing engine, of the route itself, and making the appropriate suggestions for changes. Many times I've done this, and actually found a better route than the one I was using before. OSM is like that. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > I disagree. The "map what's on the ground" is a good mantra. It > solves 90% plus of contentious mapping issues, by making a decision > to map what is there. It also guides us towards verifiability - which > is a key tenet of any shared piece of work. If you can't verify it, > then ultimately we can't map it cooperatively. Verifiability and objectivity are the principles here - so let's call them that. "Map what's on the ground" fails in plenty of cases: - walking/bike routes (what's "on the ground" is a few signposts, nothing more) - ferry routes (nothing) - many names, like business names, parks, mountains, etc - administrative boundaries - ski runs (minimal signage, and very hard to distinguish without supporting evidence) - abandoned railways - and, if we're being pedantic, tunnels, bridges, overhead cables, etc etc. It's a marginally useful rule of thumb that quickly breaks down in any serious discussion. Don't overuse it. > Cycle routes are tricky, and we haven't got there yet. Ask three > different road routing algorithms the for a best route, and expect > similar answers. With cycle routes, that won't be the case, and many > different factors need to go into the weighting, and isolating the > routing factors and their weighting is developing. You're talking about something different. There's a difference between a pre-defined "cycle route", chosen by humans and backed up by some kind of signage, website, publication or whatever, and a dynamic, computed route between two places. > > And in my opinion the solution to this is to cling to "Map What Is On > The Ground". If there is a cycle facility there, shoulder space, > shared lane, reduced speed limit, paved cut-thru - these are all > things that will help me get from A to B safely. Unfortunately, just > being on a RMS or council approved cycle route won't. Often roads > that are the most suited for cycling aren't on an "official" cycle > route, just because they don't connect two destinations. Other > linking sections are included on cycle routes even though they are > dangerous for cyclists. > > In this case, there is a user identified safe route connecting two > cycleways, that is different to the council proposed route, and the > proposed council route has no useful facilities. I'd be using the Map > What Is On The Ground mantra here. I wouldn't map the possibly > proposed council route with no facilities. What is the point of that? To help people visualise a complete path from A to B to C to D, even if the "B to C" bit is indistinguishable from any other road "on the ground". For example, see this diversion from the Great Southern Rail Trail onto the South Gippsland Highway here: http://osm.org/go/uGumFQcy-?layers=C Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no bike lane, no signage, and the road is a busy one. It's still clearly correct to indicate the route along that road, because that's where the published route (http://railtrails.org.au/index.php?option=com_railtrails&view=trail&id=144&Itemid=15) goes. > I'd be mapping the facilities that make the safe route a good cycle > route. I'd then be testing out different cycle routers to ensure that > in their "safe route mode", they recommend the best route. > > If they don't, I'd be investigating why, and seeing whether the > problem lies with the tagging, the routing engine, of the route > itself, and making the appropriate suggestions for changes. Many > times I've done this, and actually found a better route than the one I > was using before. OSM is like that. Well, as we all know, everyone maps in different ways. I'd suggest that any and all of these things are potentially worth mapping: - physical infrastructure (bike lanes, bike paths, wide shoulders...) - signed routes - published official routes - published official planned routes - published unofficial routes (in moderation) It depends on the local circumstances, the likely audience, the inclinations of the mapper (and their time availability) and lots of other things. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
On Apr 27, 2012 12:43 AM, "Steve Bennett" wrote: > Verifiability and objectivity are the principles here - so let's call > them that. "Map what's on the ground" fails in plenty of cases: > - walking/bike routes (what's "on the ground" is a few signposts, nothing more) > - ferry routes (nothing) > - many names, like business names, parks, mountains, etc > - administrative boundaries > - ski runs (minimal signage, and very hard to distinguish without > supporting evidence) > - abandoned railways > - and, if we're being pedantic, tunnels, bridges, overhead cables, etc etc. > > It's a marginally useful rule of thumb that quickly breaks down in any > serious discussion. Don't overuse it. > On the contrary. It is our touchstone whenever we encounter confusion or ambiguity. I'd argue it is useful in all the cases you have mentioned. I think you are interpreting "on the ground" too literally. It means when there is any controversy or ambiguity over what to map, we look to what is physically present at a site right now to help us resolve it. It means what is physically present overrides an image, documentation, import, or any other secondary document. It means we rely on primary research of actually going there and finding out what the situation is to be our final arbiter. Cycle and walking routes get relocated, torn up, fences put across them. Ferry routes are where the ferry actually goes, not where the timetable says it does (although on an open space, some degree of interpolation is always required). Park names? The name that is on the park prevails - quite often different to other sources. Abandoned railways should have evidence of having been there. Tunnels, bridges, overhead cables can all be verified by what is physically present, which overrides any other source. On the ground doesn't mean we can't use other sources. It just means that when sources clash, we defer to what is on the ground. This is in contrast to Wikipedia, for instance, which will use a secondary source to determine what to include. OSM will always choose what is physically present, on the ground. > > Cycle routes are tricky, and we haven't got there yet. Ask three > > different road routing algorithms the for a best route, and expect > > similar answers. With cycle routes, that won't be the case, and many > > different factors need to go into the weighting, and isolating the > > routing factors and their weighting is developing. > > You're talking about something different. There's a difference between > a pre-defined "cycle route", chosen by humans and backed up by some > kind of signage, website, publication or whatever, and a dynamic, > computed route between two places. > I know. I'm simply saying that where no such human defined route backed up by cycle facilities on the ground exists, we should include the features present, not invent a route. > To help people visualise a complete path from A to B to C to D, even > if the "B to C" bit is indistinguishable from any other road "on the > ground". > > For example, see this diversion from the Great Southern Rail Trail > onto the South Gippsland Highway here: > http://osm.org/go/uGumFQcy-?layers=C > > Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no bike lane, no > signage, and the road is a busy one. It's still clearly correct to > indicate the route along that road, because that's where the published > route ( http://railtrails.org.au/index.php?option=com_railtrails&view=trail&id=144&Itemid=15 ) > goes. No doubt it is in the map providers interest to make the route appear connected, even when in reality they may not have made a single change to the facilities on the ground. However, the reality may be in some case that there are actually gaps in the route. I see this very much as an edge case, and I can see arguments for including the connecting segments in an official named route like this one. However, in the case at hand, we're talking about separate cycle facilities that are officially unconnected. When navigating around cities, people may be joining for a section, and maybe utilising three or four different routes in a trip, so finding a connecting path between cycle routes is a common occurrence. > Well, as we all know, everyone maps in different ways. I'd suggest > that any and all of these things are potentially worth mapping: > - physical infrastructure (bike lanes, bike paths, wide shoulders...) > - signed routes > - published official routes > - published official planned routes > - published unofficial routes (in moderation) > > It depends on the local circumstances, the likely audience, the > inclinations of the mapper (and their time availability) and lots of > other things. > > Steve Adding physical infrastructure is always useful. It never does any harm. If accurate, it can either inform route choices, or be ignored. Every bad route we add severely diminishes the value of the good ones, and we see this happening already in Sydney. The
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
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 that > when sources clash, we defer to what is on the ground. This is in contrast > to Wikipedia, for instance, which will use a secondary source to determine > what to include. OSM will always choose what is physically present, on the > ground. It sounds like we don't disagree about very much. I hate these mantras "map what's on the ground" and "don't map for the renderer", because they're apt to be misunderstood and over-applied. But I think essentially there are few instances where our approaches would lead to very different outcomes. > I know. I'm simply saying that where no such human defined route backed up > by cycle facilities on the ground exists, we should include the features > present, not invent a route. And I'm slightly more liberal. > No doubt it is in the map providers interest to make the route appear > connected, even when in reality they may not have made a single change to > the facilities on the ground. However, the reality may be in some case that > there are actually gaps in the route. I see this very much as an edge case, > and I can see arguments for including the connecting segments in an official > named route like this one. Cool. > Adding physical infrastructure is always useful. It never does any harm. Sometimes exhaustively listing every "unofficial" (but "on the ground") walking track in a park can just create messy confusion. But, yes, generally. > Every bad route we add severely diminishes the value of the good ones, and > we see this happening already in Sydney. There is a signed cycle route > heading down Parramatta Rd at Croydon. This is a 3 lane, very narrow laned > road with heavy vehicles and high traffic volumes. If we mark that in OSM > in a cycle route, we may as well give the game away. Here, I disagree. You obviously have an interpretation of what a bike route should be (safe, for starters). But I think if the authorities have decided a bike route goes down a busy road, then we should follow that. If you're seriously arguing against mapping this route, aren't you contradiction your "map what's on the ground" philosophy? Signs are "on the ground". > I've no idea how you allow unofficial routes to be used in moderation. How > do you decide which to keep? How do you decide who gets to decide? One thing I can say: just because you (or I) don't know the answers to questions, doesn't mean something is a bad idea. In any cases, the answers are probably "the community decides, if and when it becomes a problem". > Would OSM really be a better project if we were to do a data import from > bikely? I can't see that going well. > Let's be careful with cycle routes in Australia. Nah. Compared to organised countries like the UK or Germany, we have little infrastructure, no wide-scale consistency, and few published conventions to follow. Until the day comes when there exists something like the LCN/RCN/NCN system, we're going to have to use liberal interpretation to achieve a useful result. > The cycle facilities are > sparse compared to the bicycle signs and council routes. There is no > central coordinating or certifying authority. I'd argue against adding > personal routes, add the physical information for a router instead. Automatic routers are just one audience. Humans are another. Provide route information for humans, and let the computers ignore it. > This information is far more valuable, and as a project it plays to our It's not an either/or situation. > strengths. I'd also argue against adding other routes where no cycle > facilities exist, or the route is dangerous. Particularly where the > information is source from council maps that aren't recently updated, or > from bicycle signs that point off a main road or cycleway. Right. You'd like to use interpretation and subjectivity as well. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
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
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. 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 12:46 PM, Ben Kelley wrote: > 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. What about if there are signs but no bike paths etc? Ian and I differed on that one. > 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. What if there were two signed routes near each other, but there wasn't, strictly speaking, a signed route between the two? Let's say 200m. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
On 30 April 2012 18:24, Steve Bennett wrote: > What if there were two signed routes near each other, but there > wasn't, strictly speaking, a signed route between the two? Let's say > 200m. Focussing on hypothetical edge cases always seems to me to result in bad decisions. I would accept that in a location with a well developed cycle network, you'd like to think that if there was a 200m gap in a cycle route that it could be a mistake or an omission, and the best thing to do is the link the cycle route sections to correct it, and make a through route. However, certainly in New South Wales this is likely not to be the case. Any cyclist around Sydney will be all too familiar with the cycle lane that disappears, leaving you on a 80km/h full-on three lane highway, with some semblance of a cycling facility possibly resuming some distance up the road. It comes back to what a cycle route is. Cyclists who just want the shortest trip between two points don't need to look at cycle routes, they can just go. A cyclist following a cycle route is looking for some kind of cycling amenity, whether than be quiet, flat, lanes, etc. So, it is clear cut to me that we shouldn't connect purely directional signs on roads with no cycling amenity. Where there is a gap in the route, we should make that apparent, and not disguise it. I can see this type of connection being valid is where the the route has been clearly updated on the ground. For example, along the Cooks River cycleway where they have opened new cycleway linking sections, replacing old road or shared path sections. In other words we're human mappers. Official cycle routes are often wrong, as other mapping services are often wrong. And yes, we should be able to correct cycle routes when they don't correspond to an amenable through route on the ground. It's a fair jump from this position to being able to enter personally preferred routes, or that we should automatically link two route sections just because they are close. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > In other words we're human mappers. Official cycle routes are often > wrong, as other mapping services are often wrong. And yes, we should > be able to correct cycle routes when they don't correspond to an > amenable through route on the ground. It's a fair jump from this > position to being able to enter personally preferred routes, or that > we should automatically link two route sections just because they are > close. Some of our German mapping-cousins have mapped places where street signs vary from one end of the street to the other, and provided that feedback to the municipality. The municipality was able to correct the sign-typos. Perhaps accurately showing cycle route gaps on OSM will allow those interested in advocacy to argue for the completion / extension of that infrastructure to fill in the gaps. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > However, certainly in New South Wales this is likely not to be the > case. Any cyclist around Sydney will be all too familiar with the > cycle lane that disappears, leaving you on a 80km/h full-on three lane > highway, with some semblance of a cycling facility possibly resuming > some distance up the road. Sure - but we cover that by being precise about cycleway=lane etc. In my area, I often map to a precision of a metre or so. > It comes back to what a cycle route is. Cyclists who just want the > shortest trip between two points don't need to look at cycle routes, > they can just go. A cyclist following a cycle route is looking for > some kind of cycling amenity, whether than be quiet, flat, lanes, etc. I think you're focusing a bit too narrowly on one kind of route. There are other kinds of routes: historical interest, fast commuting routes, easy to navigate etc. As a cyclist, I'm interested in knowing about a route that I can follow without a map. Whether or not it has bike lanes, quiet streets etc is also interesting - but is not the only consideration. (Similarly, a published route that has bike lanes, quiet streets etc but no signage could also be worth including.) >Where there is a > gap in the route, we should make that apparent, and not disguise it. Yep - through the cycleway=* tags, not gaps in the route relation. If it helps to explain my view, I see the network of intersecting routes as a valuable navigational tool for cyclists - knowing "I jump on this trail, take it up to that road, then switch to this other trail, and 20 minutes later I'm there". Having gaps in the (conceptual) network makes that work less well. > In other words we're human mappers. Official cycle routes are often > wrong, as other mapping services are often wrong. And yes, we should > be able to correct cycle routes when they don't correspond to an > amenable through route on the ground. It's a fair jump from this > position to being able to enter personally preferred routes, or that > we should automatically link two route sections just because they are > close. Ok, on those two things: 1) Personal routes: my actual (toned-down) suggestion is that such "personal" routes might be of value in the absence of more official ones. (Which also solves your slippery slope argument...) 2) Implicit connections between routes. Let's take this concrete example: http://osm.org/go/uG4JzYKDD-?layers=C The Rosstown Rail Trail runs along that bike path along the rail line then down Freda St etc. I don't think there is any signage for the Anniversary Trail (aka Outer Circle Trail) until Boyd Park. So technically there is a gap of a couple of hundred metres between them. But clearly, they're intended to link - there is even this bike/pedestrian path connecting the RRT to Poath Rd. So I'm comfortable interpolating a route between them. What do you think? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
I had no idea I would open such a can of worms! I am, however, finding the conversation productive. I would like to emphasise this point that Steve made: There are two kinds of bike information we want to convey to > cyclists: > 1) physical infrastructure like highway=cycleway or cycleway=lane > (indicated in the bike map by blue bordered-roads etc) > 2) navigational infrastructure like route=bicycle (indicated in the > bike map by a transparent blue background) > I increasingly use the OSM Cycle layer to view both of these separate kinds of information. To be honest, OSM is the only place that the first type of information can be viewed for my region (and it is almost the only place to view the second). It seems to me that the first kind of information should be quite strictly determined by "what is on the ground". However, the second kind of information does not need to have anything "on the ground" in order to be valid. A council cycle route can validly go down a street without requiring that street to have a cycle lane or even bicycle signs. This is analogous to a bus route going down ordinary streets without there needing to be bus lanes. The physical infrastructure (information type 1) is important to see, and it is part of OSM and rendered on the cycle layer. The "meta-information" about routes (information type 2) is also important to see, and it is also part of OSM and rendered independently from type 1 info on the cycle layer. Recognising this distinction does help in real-world examples. A 3-lane road could well be part of "route=bicycle" without needing to have "cycleway=lane" or "highway=bicycle". This is (and should be) perfectly valid. The map as it currently displays would in fact make this "on the ground" situation obvious to a cyclist planning their journey. The problem with having such poor cycling infrastructure in my area is that there really is no formal "network" of council cycle routes. There are some sections of great cycleways, but they are disconnected. I would find it valuable to map even "semi-official" routes (type 2 info) to connect these paths. Remember that the lack of type 1 info will make it obvious that on-the-ground infrastructure does not exist. - Lachlan ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
