Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Robert Skedgell]

On 15/12/2020 15:06, Simon Still wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 15 Dec 2020, at 14:35, Robert Skedgell > > wrote:
>>
>> If 1057 is used on a carriageway
>> rather than on a lane or track, it presumably indicates a route,
>> although TSRGD 2016 does not elaborate upon this - is there an LTN which
>> does?
> 
> Not by any means.  1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for
> traffic engineers.  
> 
> - Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it
> ‘to alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course
> drivers should be conscious that there could be cyclists on any road) 
>
> - can’t work out how to get cyclists around a bus stop or parked car?
> Paint a 1057 to indicate road position. >
> OSM Wiki Cycle_routes 

The wording in TSRGD 2016, however is "Cycle lane, track or route". If
it is on the carriageway and is not part of a lane, the assumption would
be that it indicates a route.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made#tgp2-tbl2-tbd1-tr28-tc2

Luckily there is further guidance on the use of 1057, which is a bit
more detailed than TSRGD's description.

LTN 1/20 10.5.4 includes "Providing road markings to highlight the
presence of cyclists to other road users, such as cycle symbols to TSRGD
diagram 1057, lines to TSRGD diagram 1010 and advisory cycle lanes, as
well as coloured surfacing". 10.7.35 allows this on the approach to a
mini-roundabout: "Cycle symbols to TSRGD diagram 1057 may be placed in
the primary position to guide cyclists and to alert motorist to their
presence."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906344/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf

Chapter 6 of London Cycling Design Standards 6.2.5 includes this:
"Diagram 1057 cycle symbol markings should be selected according to the
width available: usually medium-sized, but small for cycle tracks and
large for ASL boxes. They are used, orientated in the direction of
travel for cyclists, in three distinct and well recognised ways:

• For conspicuity: alerting other road users to expect the presence of
cyclists
• For positioning: suggesting a recommended line of travel for cyclists
• For wayfinding: indicating a route, particularly at a decision point
Any use of this marking should either meet all three functions, or
positioning and conspicuity without an explicit wayfinding function.

The cycle symbol should never be used for
wayfinding where it compromises the positioning
function, particularly at junctions and past parking
and loading bays."
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter6-signsandmarkings.pdf

You are correct in stating that 1057 outside a lane on a carriageway
does not necessarily indicate a route as I had previously thought.

> "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise
> signed route”

However, if a cycle route in London has 1057 at 150-200m intervals (on
local streets), or 20-30m intervals on a main road route (LCDS fig.
6.2), it's an "otherwise signed" route. It's not a particularly well
signed route and not using 1057.1 for the route number is unhelpful, but
as some CS and Q route numbers appear to be changing to C route numbers
they could be out of date anyway (unless Will Norman changes his mind,
or Shaun Bailey has them all ripped up).

> I would argue that a ‘route’ marked with nothing but 1057 symbols is not
> useful in any way and doesn’t meet that definition 
>
> I have similar issues with London’s Q network - sections of
> un-numbered quietway.  However, these should indicate a certain level of
> service - ie that they meet TfL s quality criteria in terms of traffic
> volumes etc - but also have a point.  Q sections are supposed to be
> feeders for the strategic cycle network of QW and CS routes - ie follow
> a Q and you should soon get to a main, destination signposted, route.
>  (though again, naming and numbering being revised and all routes that
> meet *latest* quality standards will be C numbered)  


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Simon Still]

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 17:39, Andy Allan  wrote:
> 
> es.
> 
> * Not all bike paths are part of a larger signed cycling route.
> * Not all bike lanes are part of a larger signed cycling route.

But any cycle infrastructure that DOES exist - eg short sections of protected 
cycleway - will be picked up by routing engines and prioritised for routes



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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 15:09, Simon Still  wrote:

> Not by any means.  1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for traffic 
> engineers.
>
> - Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it ‘to 
> alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course drivers 
> should be conscious that there could be cyclists on any road)
>
> - can’t work out how to get cyclists around a bus stop or parked car? Paint a 
> 1057 to indicate road position.
>
> OSM Wiki Cycle_routes
>
> "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed 
> route”

I'm broadly in agreement with Simon's point of view on this one. I see
in many parts of the world the thought that if there is any form of
cycling infrastructure, it must be part of a route relation. This
isn't helpful. Some infrastructure is just there and not part of a
route. In fact, the "signed" bit of "signed cycle route" was not only
there to avoid enthusiastic mappers making up their own routes (from
whole cloth), but also to ensure that individual occurrences of
infrastructure aren't mistaken for routes.

* Not all bike paths are part of a larger signed cycling route.
* Not all bike lanes are part of a larger signed cycling route.
* Also, not all 1057 marked stretches of road are part of a larger
signed cycling route. (Same applies to sharrows, for our American
colleagues).

In saying all that, with the state of the art in the LCN era being so
low-quality, along with several years of neglect since then, it's hard
to tell just by looking at one stretch of road whether it is or is not
part of a longer route - often a lot of detective work is required! So
I think the best results are when there are some agreed broad outlines
of how we work, but we shouldn't be afraid to discuss and document in
detail specific edge cases.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Simon Still]

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 14:35, Robert Skedgell  wrote:
> 
> If 1057 is used on a carriageway
> rather than on a lane or track, it presumably indicates a route,
> although TSRGD 2016 does not elaborate upon this - is there an LTN which
> does?

Not by any means.  1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for traffic 
engineers.  

- Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it ‘to 
alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course drivers 
should be conscious that there could be cyclists on any road) 

- can’t work out how to get cyclists around a bus stop or parked car? Paint a 
1057 to indicate road position. 

OSM Wiki Cycle_routes 
 
"Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed route” 

I would argue that a ‘route’ marked with nothing but 1057 symbols is not useful 
in any way and doesn’t meet that definition 

I have similar issues with London’s Q network - sections of un-numbered 
quietway.  However, these should indicate a certain level of service - ie that 
they meet TfL s quality criteria in terms of traffic volumes etc - but also 
have a point.  Q sections are supposed to be feeders for the strategic cycle 
network of QW and CS routes - ie follow a Q and you should soon get to a main, 
destination signposted, route.  (though again, naming and numbering being 
revised and all routes that meet *latest* quality standards will be C numbered) 
 ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Robert Skedgell]

On 15/12/2020 13:26, Simon Still wrote:
> See discussion on 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95752985#map=18/51.46201/-0.12146&layers=C
> 
> 
> There appear to be a large number of sections of road in some areas of
> London tagged as ‘cycle route’ that are no more than the occasional 1057
> cycle symbol painted on the road.
> 
> They are not signed, and do not have any route numbering.

Some of the LCN/LCN+ routes are signed with blue directional signs, but
often without route numbers.

You would need recent street level imagery or a survey to determine
whether a route really has degraded to only fading TSRGD diagram 1057
signs ("Cycle lane, track or route"). If 1057 is used on a carriageway
rather than on a lane or track, it presumably indicates a route,
although TSRGD 2016 does not elaborate upon this - is there an LTN which
does?

I am not very familiar with the area discussed in the changeset above,
but routes I have used in LB Hackney this summer certainly were.

> 
> Based on the discussion it appears
> - most were added by user MacLondon 
> - they were the ‘lowest level’ of route designation by some councils at
> some time in the past. Pick some ‘useful routes’ on ‘quiet roads’ and
> just paint some symbols on them for people to follow 
> 
> Some of these appear on the last 2015 TfL cycle maps in yellow (routes
> were blue) keyed as ‘other roads recommended by cyclists’ 
>  
> My opinion is
> - these are not followable on the ground 
> - they do not meet TfL or borough quality criteria (and thus do not
> appear on any more recent maps) eg - they are not shown in any way on
> Lambeth councils 2017 cycle
> map 
> https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map
> 

I wouldn't trust most borough councils here, as the older LCN/LCN+
routes are likely to be the responsibility of TfL/GLA.

> - they decrease legibility of the map because they create a mass of
> dense blue lines from which it’s hard to pick out genuinely useful routes.
> - they probably have a negative impact on routing engines as they are
> likely treated equally to actual signposted routes. 
> - in many cases where they do show the most direct route through
> backstreets that is likely to be the busiest with rat running traffic as
> it’s where google and Waze will send drivers. 

Unless there's a new modal filter as part of a Low Traffic
Neighbourhood, obviously.

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Jon Pennycook]

Outside London, these days I tend to use direction signs or named route
signs (eg named after planets/satellites/dwarf planets in Woking, or
colours in Bracknell, or the "Cycling Discoveries" signs in north
Hampshire) as an indication of an LCN/RCN. In the past, I had looser
criteria, and I sometimes go back and remove LCNs that I added (eg there
are some I added in Wokingham in the expectation that signs would appear,
but they never did).



On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, 13:28 Simon Still,  wrote:

> See discussion on
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95752985#map=18/51.46201/-0.12146&layers=C
>
> There appear to be a large number of sections of road in some areas of
> London tagged as ‘cycle route’ that are no more than the occasional 1057
> cycle symbol painted on the road.
>
> They are not signed, and do not have any route numbering.
>
> Based on the discussion it appears
> - most were added by user MacLondon
> - they were the ‘lowest level’ of route designation by some councils at
> some time in the past. Pick some ‘useful routes’ on ‘quiet roads’ and just
> paint some symbols on them for people to follow
>
> Some of these appear on the last 2015 TfL cycle maps in yellow (routes
> were blue) keyed as ‘other roads recommended by cyclists’
>
> My opinion is
> - these are not followable on the ground
> - they do not meet TfL or borough quality criteria (and thus do not appear
> on any more recent maps) eg - they are not shown in any way on Lambeth 
> councils
> 2017 cycle map
> https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map
> - they decrease legibility of the map because they create a mass of dense
> blue lines from which it’s hard to pick out genuinely useful routes.
> - they probably have a negative impact on routing engines as they are
> likely treated equally to actual signposted routes.
> - in many cases where they do show the most direct route through
> backstreets that is likely to be the busiest with rat running traffic as
> it’s where google and Waze will send drivers.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Simon Still]

See discussion on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95752985#map=18/51.46201/-0.12146&layers=C
 


There appear to be a large number of sections of road in some areas of London 
tagged as ‘cycle route’ that are no more than the occasional 1057 cycle symbol 
painted on the road.

They are not signed, and do not have any route numbering.

Based on the discussion it appears
- most were added by user MacLondon 
- they were the ‘lowest level’ of route designation by some councils at some 
time in the past. Pick some ‘useful routes’ on ‘quiet roads’ and just paint 
some symbols on them for people to follow 

Some of these appear on the last 2015 TfL cycle maps in yellow (routes were 
blue) keyed as ‘other roads recommended by cyclists’ 
 
My opinion is
- these are not followable on the ground 
- they do not meet TfL or borough quality criteria (and thus do not appear on 
any more recent maps) eg - they are not shown in any way on Lambeth councils 
2017 cycle map 
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map
 

- they decrease legibility of the map because they create a mass of dense blue 
lines from which it’s hard to pick out genuinely useful routes.
- they probably have a negative impact on routing engines as they are likely 
treated equally to actual signposted routes. 
- in many cases where they do show the most direct route through backstreets 
that is likely to be the busiest with rat running traffic as it’s where google 
and Waze will send drivers. 

Thoughts?


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