Re: [talk-au] Cycling network tag
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:29 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: The cycle tourism network that I suspect that you're referring to is the National Byway http://www.nationalbyway.org/welcome.asp which is a bit of a one-off - there are other RCNs that suit different cycling styles and needs. Ah, could be. I did ride some parts of the NB. Strangely, in several places it was very different from what was marked on OSM - I kept hitting it at right angles. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycling network tag
On 08/12/2014 11:25, Steve Bennett wrote: It was quite an eye opener for me earlier this year to cycle in the UK to discover that they really do have LCN, RCN, and NCN. And they're slightly different from what I expected: NCN is basically a network that links towns together, LCN and other stuff, but with the same goal of efficiently getting from place to place. RCN is a cycle tourism network, and follows scenic, rather than efficient, routes. (Following an NCN route is often disappointing...) I think that it depends a bit where you are. In some places NCN routes are essentially boring cycle motorways, but in the more interesting bits of the UK countryside there are places where NCN routes need more just than a city bike. In those cases I'd just try and tag surface and mtb:scale appropriately so that cycle routers and renderers can work appropriately. The cycle tourism network that I suspect that you're referring to is the National Byway http://www.nationalbyway.org/welcome.asp which is a bit of a one-off - there are other RCNs that suit different cycling styles and needs. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycling network tag
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Nicholas Barker nicholasbark...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Steve/Frank [replying back to list, looks like that was your intention] First up IMO I wouldn't be putting the Mawson as an NCN. Any kind of 'cycle network' including a 'national one' implies that it will be negotiable by most, if not all bicycles. This would require a good quality firm surface. The Mawson is sold as a long distance MTB route. Whilst in reality a good proportion of it is on (boring) unsealed roads there are many sections that would be a struggle on anything other than a mountain bike or sturdy hybrid. We had 9 in our group. 4 mountain bikes, 3 touring bikes, 2 cyclocrosses, all pretty heavily loaded. Yes, it's rough in places, and a couple of sections at the far north were genuine mountain biking. But it's so far from anywhere that there's basically no chance of anyone thinking oh I know, I'll just take this beautiful bike path called the Mawson Trail from Blinman to Quorn - OH GOD IT'S SO ROUGH :) I made the mistake of tagging the bicentennial as a NCN a while backooops. Yeah, but large parts of the BNT aren't rideable on *anything*. As for routes i believe that it should only be tagged if its signed as a route or there is other strong evidence of it being a route...Wikipedia entry below A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often *predetermined and publicized*. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by people and vehicles Sounds good to me. I'd emphasise the presence of some kind of physical signage, even if it's a bit sparse and incomplete. I will only tag a LCN/RCN/NCN route if i either see: Signs Plans from authorities that 'own' the infrastructure (softcopy or hardcopy) - e.g. a councils 'cycling plan' Literature from associations that have the backing of the 'owning authority' - e.g. scenic routes such as the Mawson/Kidman/Goldfields Trek etc. Agreed. I don't agree with LCN/RCN/NCN routes that have been tagged: apparently popular (unless it is publicized) - an example was a local cycling club have tagged their regular road criterium route as an LCNuseless to anyone who isn't in the club. Agreed. for a one off event/bike ride - someone once tagged an 'organised and popular cycle ride' that occurred only once along the route they tagged. This is wrong and just cluttering the map with useless information. The following year the event used a completely different route anyway... just because the tagger thought it was a 'nice route/ride' - had one of these tagged through western Victoria - its still there i think. Yeah, I think we just need to encourage these people to go to more suitable places like bikely, mapmyride, strava... HOWEVER.MTB routes are a whole different kettle of fish i think which needs some more discussion/guidelines as the feature is used in a more 'unofficial' way with route suggestions from users etc. I am guilty of tagging mtb friendly singletracks as 'routes' purely so other MTBers are aware that they are legal, ride-able and fun... Also agreed. mtb=yes is one way of doing that. I would prefer that route=mtb means there is some kind of official backing behind it, including a rating, but I definitely your need, and I don't think it causes many problems. Maybe there needs to be a different tag that isnt a route but shows up in opencyclemap as 'MTB suggested' IMHO, don't be too fixated on OpenCycleMap. The styling is pretty ugly, the maintainer isn't especially open to feedback, and doesn't seem to care all that much about tagging outside the UK. A site I run, http://cycletour.org, does show mtb=yes tags (a pink halo). https://www.dropbox.com/s/b8kjc1h5v0x8mju/Screenshot%202014-12-15%2013.19.46.png?dl=0 Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycling network tag
On 15/12/2014 1:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Nicholas Barker nicholasbark...@gmail.com mailto:nicholasbark...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Steve/Frank As for routes i believe that it should only be tagged if its signed as a route or there is other strong evidence of it being a route...Wikipedia entry below A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often *_predetermined and publicized_*. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by people and vehicles Sounds good to me. I'd emphasise the presence of some kind of physical signage, even if it's a bit sparse and incomplete. I will only tag a LCN/RCN/NCN route if i either see: Signs Plans from authorities that 'own' the infrastructure (softcopy or hardcopy) - e.g. a councils 'cycling plan' Literature from associations that have the backing of the 'owning authority' - e.g. scenic routes such as the Mawson/Kidman/Goldfields Trek etc. Agreed. Dissagreee for the following reason. If I chose to take a motor vehicle from one town to another I have excellent guides as to the route to take - motorways, primary highways etc are all identified. If I chose to take the bicycle .. there is little in the way of identified good routes to take in OSM here .. I don't even 'know' if the highways have a wide shoulder. I so take a much broader view of identifying and marking bicycle routes. Is it bicycle friendly, safe .. and the 'best' way and in use? Then it should be marked and mapped. for a one off event/bike ride - someone once tagged an 'organised and popular cycle ride' that occurred only once along the route they tagged. This is wrong and just cluttering the map with useless information. The following year the event used a completely different route anyway... just because the tagger thought it was a 'nice route/ride' - had one of these tagged through western Victoria - its still there i think. Yeah, I think we just need to encourage these people to go to more suitable places like bikely, mapmyride, strava... If that is the 'best' bicycle route between those points then I'd leave it. Particularly if it is the only route in that area. HOWEVER.MTB routes are a whole different kettle of fish i think which needs some more discussion/guidelines as the feature is used in a more 'unofficial' way with route suggestions from users etc. I am guilty of tagging mtb friendly singletracks as 'routes' purely so other MTBers are aware that they are legal, ride-able and fun... Also agreed. mtb=yes is one way of doing that. I would prefer that route=mtb means there is some kind of official backing behind it, including a rating, but I definitely your need, and I don't think it causes many problems. I'd like to see the same attitude to marking 'road' bicycle routes too.. where their is a suitable official route that should be preferred. But a lot of our country has no official routes .. and even some of those may be marked on a map .. but don't exist on the ground. Maybe there needs to be a different tag that isnt a route but shows up in opencyclemap as 'MTB suggested' IMHO, don't be too fixated on OpenCycleMap. The styling is pretty ugly, the maintainer isn't especially open to feedback, and doesn't seem to care all that much about tagging outside the UK. A site I run, http://cycletour.org, does show mtb=yes tags (a pink halo). Good .. motor vehicle maps show both motorways and tracks .. I see no reason why bicycle maps should not show all types of bicycle routes 'road' or mtb .. after all mtb can take 'road' routes .. and some 'road' bicycles can take easy mtb routes. And both want to know where bicycle shops are, and probably bicycle parking, etc. --- Presently I'm removing some 'cycle lane' tags .. where there is no cycle lane in those locations.. and some footways with bicycle=yes.. again not there. They may have been marked up that way .. as a 'route' indication .. so I'm removing what is not there.. I might tag them as a route .. once I've been along it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycling network tag
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Frank sundowne...@optusnet.com.au wrote: The network tag used on cycling routes .. is for example National Cycling Network (ncn) as in from one country to another In Australia we may not use this tag as per the definition .. but the length of the route may mean that in Europe it would be an ncn. So should 'we' adopt the prractice of 'elevation' the network status? A similar practice has been used for highways. It was quite an eye opener for me earlier this year to cycle in the UK to discover that they really do have LCN, RCN, and NCN. And they're slightly different from what I expected: NCN is basically a network that links towns together, LCN and other stuff, but with the same goal of efficiently getting from place to place. RCN is a cycle tourism network, and follows scenic, rather than efficient, routes. (Following an NCN route is often disappointing...) Anyway, the practice I've generally followed (in Victoria at least) and I think others roughly do too is: LCN: local council routes of minor interest, particularly the on-street ones RCN: the main network of off-road paths in Melbourne, and all non-mtb tourism routes (rail trails etc) NCN: major long-distance routes, like the Mawson Trail. For my site, cycletour.org, I only render RCN, and I selectively display a couple of long distance MTB routes. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
