Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Aug 14, 2020, 15:53 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

> On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>> If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should 
>> not be mapped in OSM*.
>>
>
> In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as there is a 
> general policy of decluttering signs.  One of the arguments for that is that 
> everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't need the signs.  I think is 
> also used as an argument for why it can take councils years to fix missing 
> street name signs.
>
> If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on virtual 
> signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!
>

At least in Poland it is purely theoretical issue while problem of 
nonexisting/proposed/gone
route relations cluttering map is real (local governments and organizations 
keep creating various
routes and later fail to maintain them).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[David Woolley]

On 14/08/2020 19:14, Simon Still wrote:
I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that changes anything - 
pedestrians have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag 
would add anything


Towpaths are privately paths (currently owned by the Canals and Rivers 
Trust), so the rules for public paths don't apply.  At one time  you had 
to apply for a free licence to cycle on them, the quid for quo for which 
was a promise to do things like give pedestrians priority.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Robert Skedgell]

On 14/08/2020 19:14, Simon Still wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 14 Aug 2020, at 16:47, Ken Kilfedder > > wrote:
>>
>> I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too -
>> at least there are signs to that effect all over the place.  Well
>> worth tagging them to that effect if true.
> 
> I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that changes anything -
> pedestrians have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag
> would add anything 

I think that while it's certainly good practice to give priority to
pedestrians on any shared (unsegregated) infrastructure, I'm not sure
how you would tag it in addition to segregated=no.

On canal towpaths, the Canal & River Trust's cycling FAQ states that
"Pedestrians are generally the most vulnerable and have priority at all
times".
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling/cycling-faqs

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Simon Still]

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 16:47, Ken Kilfedder  wrote:
> 
> I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - at least 
> there are signs to that effect all over the place.  Well worth tagging them 
> to that effect if true.


I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that changes anything - pedestrians 
have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag would add anything 


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Ken Kilfedder]

I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - at least 
there are signs to that effect all over the place.  Well worth tagging them to 
that effect if true.

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk


On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, at 1:55 PM, Simon Still wrote:
> 
> 
> There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have many - 
> rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width 
> restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.  All 
> of those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo bike or 
> disability adapted cycle. 
> 
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Robert Skedgell]

On 14/08/2020 13:55, Simon Still wrote:
> See the blog posts that I linked to.  
> Plus 
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database 
> 
> (Our involvement has now ended but TfL should be continuing to use CID
> info to improve OSM accuracy) 
> 
> More discussion planned within LCC and community to press for better
> navigation and wayfinding 

I look forward to seeing how the discussion progresses.

>>> Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but
>>> some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked
>>> routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths,
>>> traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,
>>> smooth tarmac good)  
>>
>> Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have
>> surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently
>> might help.
> 
> Good to know surface is already widely used - I’d managed to miss that
> in the work I’d done. 
> Smoothness is a new tag for me 

One way to improve surface=* tagging (and also lit=*) might be to
encourage people to install the Street Complete mobile app and try using
it when they go for a walk. It's very good at finding gaps even in
places mapped with a lot of detail.

> What has come up in discussions is that it would be good to map
> ‘restrictions’ more comprehensively and have routing algorithms that
> recognised them.  
> 
> There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have
> many - rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width
> restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.
>  All of those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo
> bike or disability adapted cycle. 

On towpaths, they will often be tagged with highway=footway +
bicycle=permissive + towpath=yes. There are times when I would prefer to
use a route which avoided towpaths as much as possible, particularly the
Regent's Canal and places where boats are moored. Having them mapped is
one thing, but persuading any developers of routing software that there
might be enough demand to add it as a routing option is another.

> An objective would be to be able to plan a ‘disabled suitable route’ 

Asking people to add data at street crossings (particularly crossings of
segregated cycle tracks) like dropped kerbs and tactile paving might be
helpful in this respect, even when it is not of direct use to cyclists.
It might not hurt LCC's case to be seen to be assisting VI pedestrians.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/08/2020 14:53, David Woolley wrote:

On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation 
should not be mapped in OSM*.


In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as 
there is a general policy of decluttering signs.  One of the arguments 
for that is that everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't 
need the signs.  I think is also used as an argument for why it can 
take councils years to fix missing street name signs.


If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on 
virtual signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!



That's a bit of an "extrapolation too far" I think.  I don't think 
anyone was talking about general highway signage, just addressing the 
very real problem that happens when cycle routes change and signage 
lags, and the problems that we have when, on a route that goes A-B-C-D, 
Sustrans are no longer looking after the B-C part, but _everyone_ 
following the route will still need to get from B to C, so they'll have 
to "join up the gaps" between the Sustrans-maintained parts.


The key question is what Robert asked at the top of this thread:

> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
> that aren't on the NCN.

... actually I'd add here a third category, where there are short gaps 
in existing Sustrans routes.  An example which I've mentioned elsewhere 
is https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/54.23978/-1.20491=C - 
Sustrans don't have NCN 656 running along the A170, there's a gap.


> How can we distinguish these in OSM?
> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

I'd suggest that it makes no sense, in the case of the example above, to 
omit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38353700 from NCN 656.  This is 
what is in OSM now, and I think it makes sense to join the gap where 
there is unambiguously only one way of getting from A to B.  Perhaps 
some sort of role in the relation could be used here to say either "this 
isn't technically part of NCN656, but it's the only way of following 
NCN656, so you're going to have to go along here whether you like it or 
not".  Other "no longer Sustrans but still a promoted named route" 
sections could have a different relation role.


However I don't think that it makes sense to join up routes using any 
sort of guesswork.  Taking NCN 67 at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/53.2344/-1.3726=C as an 
example - there's no point in pretending that it extends north of 
Corbriggs or south of Chesterfield.


Another problem is that the on-the-road updates may not match what 
Sustrans' new maps with dotted lines on them suggest that they will do.  
The NCN1 marker at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=54.30117=-0.44081#map=19/54.30117/-0.44081=C 
has recently been "re-stickered" to remove the Sustrans logo.  As far as 
I can tell that road section isn't on the list to be made 
"non-Sustrans".  I have no idea whether Sustrans' web maps are wrong, 
Sustrans' volunteer has stickered the wrong sign, or (entirely possible) 
I've misread the intent of the re-stickering.


Best Regards,

Andy




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[David Woolley]

On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation 
should not be mapped in OSM*.


In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as there 
is a general policy of decluttering signs.  One of the arguments for 
that is that everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't need the 
signs.  I think is also used as an argument for why it can take councils 
years to fix missing street name signs.


If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on 
virtual signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Ed Loach]

Peter asked (re NCN 51):
> What area is this, please?
> 
> NCN 51 comes near me through Milton Keynes, so I have made some adjustments 
> to the relation in the past (when it was re-routed to avoid going through the 
> middle 
> of the intu shopping centre).

I live near the Colchester to Harwich section, before it takes the foot ferry 
to Suffolk and turns back west past you to Oxford. On the Cycle map layer the 
EV2 labels seem to take priority until you zoom in closer.

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Simon Still]

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 09:31, Robert Skedgell  wrote:
> 
> On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote:
>> 
>> In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to
>> cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing
>> algorithms about the real experience of using them.
>> 
>> Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London
>> Cycling Campaign. 
> 
> Is there any more information on what LCC are doing in this area? There
> are probably members, myself included, who would be happy to help.
> 
> I know that borough groups audit changes to local infra, but having
> detailed photographs and notes are less useful to the wider cycling
> community than they could be if the information never finds its way onto
> OSM.

See the blog posts that I linked to.  
Plus 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database 
 

(Our involvement has now ended but TfL should be continuing to use CID info to 
improve OSM accuracy) 

More discussion planned within LCC and community to press for better navigation 
and wayfinding 

>> 
>> Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but
>> some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked
>> routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths,
>> traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,
>> smooth tarmac good)  
> 
> Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have
> surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently
> might help.


Good to know surface is already widely used - I’d managed to miss that in the 
work I’d done. 
Smoothness is a new tag for me 

What has come up in discussions is that it would be good to map ‘restrictions’ 
more comprehensively and have routing algorithms that recognised them.  

There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have many - 
rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width 
restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.  All of 
those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo bike or 
disability adapted cycle. 

An objective would be to be able to plan a ‘disabled suitable route’ 

Simon Still;
Campaigns Team, LCC___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Aug 13, 2020, 16:41 by simon.st...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
>> On 13 Aug 2020, at 11:41, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <>> 
>> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst <>> rich...@systemed.net>> > 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ... However, note that the "removed"
>>>
>> sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the
>> dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where the
>> route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that some of
>> the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and will quickly
>> be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.
>>
>> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
>> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
>> that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?
>> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
>> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.
>>
> An interesting conundrum.  I’m thinking about mapping and navigation in 
> London at the moment (see blogs at 
> https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1
> https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding
>
>
> So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on the 
> ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was some 
> discussion recently about this - > 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html> )
>
> So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t it 
> remain in OSM?  
>
Yes, until signs are removed. Though for practical reasons - if there is not 
enough mappers to verify
it fully and it is certain that signs will be removed it may be OK to remove it 
without such survey.

> Conversely  - how do you deal with older bits of say London Cycle Network 
> where signs have been removed or become unreadable.
>
If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should 
not be mapped in OSM*.
Though I would first contact route operator before deleting/changing relation 
in OSM,
if route is supposed to be maintained.

*except rare and extreme cases where route is widely recognized without being 
signed, but
such cases are rare

>  For example, I recently had an extended discussion about the status of the 
> paths in Brockwell Park in Brixton (changeset here - > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875>  )  Maps showed routes and 
> there may once have been signage but there is no longer any signage and 
> supporting information says there is not a designated ‘route’ here. 
>
Then it is eligible for deletion. OSM is not place to map things that used to 
exist but are gone.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Robert Skedgell]

On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote:
> 
> In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to
> cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing
> algorithms about the real experience of using them.
> 
> Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London
> Cycling Campaign. 

Is there any more information on what LCC are doing in this area? There
are probably members, myself included, who would be happy to help.

I know that borough groups audit changes to local infra, but having
detailed photographs and notes are less useful to the wider cycling
community than they could be if the information never finds its way onto
OSM.

> 
> Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but
> some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked
> routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths,
> traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,
> smooth tarmac good)  

Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have
surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently
might help.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi @Ed,
What area is this, please?
NCN 51 comes near me through Milton Keynes, so I have made some adjustments to 
the relation in the past (when it was re-routed to avoid going through the 
middle of the intu shopping centre). 

Regards,Peter 

On Friday, 14 August 2020, 09:04:51 BST, Ed Loach  
wrote:  
 
 DaveF replied to:

> > So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t
> > it remain in OSM?

with:
 
> OSM should be using the most up to date data available. In this
> instance
> I think Sustrans saying they've decommissioned a few NCNs &
> publishing
> an updated map is the more accurate information. I don't think the
> relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I
> think).

In some cases OSM *is* the most up to date data there is. Locally I watched as 
the local Sustrans ranger (I hope I've got the term correct) added NCN 150 to 
the map after getting home from putting up the stickers - the relation grew 
over the few days it took. I will be leaving the local part of the NCN 51 
relation that has been reclassified for him to update as and when it gets 
re-stickered.

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Ed Loach]

DaveF replied to:

> > So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t
> > it remain in OSM?

with:
 
> OSM should be using the most up to date data available. In this
> instance
> I think Sustrans saying they've decommissioned a few NCNs &
> publishing
> an updated map is the more accurate information. I don't think the
> relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I
> think).

In some cases OSM *is* the most up to date data there is. Locally I watched as 
the local Sustrans ranger (I hope I've got the term correct) added NCN 150 to 
the map after getting home from putting up the stickers - the relation grew 
over the few days it took. I will be leaving the local part of the NCN 51 
relation that has been reclassified for him to update as and when it gets 
re-stickered.

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb