Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On Mon 09/11/09 15:53 , "Donald Allwright" donald_allwri...@yahoo.com sent: >There are signs for the destinations, and distances. I honestly >can't recall if there were bike symbols on them - there may well >have been. I clearly remember that the sign had a picture of a walker, a cyclist and a horse rider on it when I was at the Swavesey station. However when I went back to photograph the signs, they were covered up again - possibly as a result of an email conversation I had with the guy from the council concerning its status. Donald I detoured via the busway on my way home this evening, along the section from Longstanton to Swavesey. Yes the signs are covered up (although I'm sure I saw some that weren't yesterday afternoon), but behind the hessian it has the pictures Donal describes, and definitely says Bridleway. I think it's clear that is the intended legal status of the Cambridge - St Ives section, and I guess that is how they will be depicted on, say, Ordnance Survey maps (when they catch up), unlike the southern section, which I understand will exclude horses, and will therefore (only) be a cycleway. Special high-level push buttons have been included at crossings to enable horse riders to push the buttons without dismounting. To answer David's earlier point, yes, it is a good compacted limestone surface, comparable to the Haling Way along the Cam, but much wider of course, and it rides well on a touring bike. But it is not self-draining everywhere. Where it goes through the flood plain of the Ouse towards St Ives, the GBW is often elevated above the general ground level, but the track alongside is frequently at natural ground level, just rising up to the busway every so-often. After the light rain of last week, there were a couple of places where the track was under water to the extent that my feet got wet at the bottom of the pedal stroke. Not great design there. Richard ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
>There are signs for the destinations, and distances. I honestly >can't recall if there were bike symbols on them - there may well >have been. I clearly remember that the sign had a picture of a walker, a cyclist and a horse rider on it when I was at the Swavesey station. However when I went back to photograph the signs, they were covered up again - possibly as a result of an email conversation I had with the guy from the council concerning its status. Donald ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
>> OK, I haven't yet, and I'm going from what the County Council >> have said, both in the plans and in discussion with the Cycling >> Campaign. When I do maybe I'll find myself agreeing with you. > > It's not really bad, it's just the kind of compacted surface they > say it is. It also undulates up and down in a fairly irritating > and stupid way. This of course, assumes we are talking about the track down the side. When I was there, there were many people using the lovely smooth flat busway concrete to cycle on. This may not be ideal once the buses start... Tom ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
> Their page doesn't call it a bridleway either - and that's > because, as I said, its formal status is as a maintenance track > for the busway, which they are allowing cyclists, walkers and > horse riders to use. (horses won't be allowed on the southern > section at all, BTW). Ok, fair point - they had much more information on the website before they changed the contents over to imply it was 'finished'. That gave the terms I used previously. (I won't try and dredge up a copy) >> The standard OSM rule is to tag what is on the ground, I >> thought. People will judge OSM maps by using them, and seeing >> how well they correspond to what they find. They want care if >> we say "but somebody else say this is as good as", they just >> care if the map matches the ground or not. > > Absolutely, but I'm fully expecting this will by signed with the > appropriate cycle signs eventually - remember it isn't > officially open yet. But we should be tagging the route itself, rather than just according to what some of the signs might say it is (I think there might always be ones which say bridleway, just as a right of way) > OK, I haven't yet, and I'm going from what the County Council > have said, both in the plans and in discussion with the Cycling > Campaign. When I do maybe I'll find myself agreeing with you. It's not really bad, it's just the kind of compacted surface they say it is. It also undulates up and down in a fairly irritating and stupid way. > Have they not even put direction signs for cyclists at the St > Ives end? There are signs for the destinations, and distances. I honestly can't recall if there were bike symbols on them - there may well have been. >> If we tag it as one then we just create an impression amongst >> someone whe tries an OSM map that cycleway doesn't mean >> cycleway. It's a bad advertisement for the map. It's like >> going to where the map says there is a road through, and >> discovering there is a footpath - it reflects really badly. > > That's not a reasonable analogy. This has been done for cyclists > - indeed primarily for cyclists - you're just disagreeing about > the quality of what they have achieved (and I agree with you > about that - it's ridiculous they haven't surfaced it), whereas > asserting a way through for cars that doesn't actually exists is > clearly incorrect. of the pavement cycleways in Cambridge are > far worse than this even though they have a tarmac surface. What I'm saying is that if the normal visible OSM map shows this as a cycleway, people will expect a cycleway. Yes, we can tag it as a cycleway with non-tarmac, but if that shows to the user as a cycleway, then they will be disappointed if they try and use our map. Claiming it is designated as an NCN can be done separately, that doesn't mean we have to claim it is a cycleway on the map when it does not have the conventional characteristics of a cycleway. Perhaps I'm being picky, but for me it comes down to expecting a slightly higher standard of the OSM map - unlike say an OS map it doesn't just mark a right of way across the map, which may not be usable on the ground. It maps what someone has physically found there, with a best description of it. Tom > > David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On 09/11/2009 15:15, David Earl wrote: > Their page doesn't call it a bridleway either Actually, following the link in the corner to http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/community/rights/ it then says: "New bridleway and cycleway: To make sure people can still enjoy this route [the busway] a new bridleway and cycleway next to the track will be ready to use within eight weeks of The Busway opening. This will make sure there is easy access to the countryside on foot, by bike or horse." So they call it both things! David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On 09/11/2009 14:54, Tom Evans wrote: >>> The busway people themselves are referring to it as a bridleway >>> rather than a cycleway over that section. Even they wouldn't >>> claim it's fit to be called a cycleway, it's just sustrans >>> doing that. >> No it isn't: "From St Ives to Longstanton the path will be of a >> compacted limestone material. This is a widely approved type of >> surface for rural cycleways as it is much smoother than any other >> gravel-type surface. It is usable for all types of bicycle and >> pushchairs."[1] > > Selective quoting, from a section of description which goes to great > lengths to call the thing a path, and not once a cycleway. But even > that selective quote doesn't go so far as to call it a cycleway, > just comment that it's as good as some other people have used. Come on, I quoted the relevant bit, not a partisan selective quote. Their page doesn't call it a bridleway either - and that's because, as I said, its formal status is as a maintenance track for the busway, which they are allowing cyclists, walkers and horse riders to use. (horses won't be allowed on the southern section at all, BTW). >> There's lots of designated cycleways which are grotty in one way >> or another. A national cycle route surely has to be marked as a >> cycleway. > > The standard OSM rule is to tag what is on the ground, I thought. > People will judge OSM maps by using them, and seeing how well they > correspond to what they find. They want care if we say "but > somebody else say this is as good as", they just care if the map > matches the ground or not. Absolutely, but I'm fully expecting this will by signed with the appropriate cycle signs eventually - remember it isn't officially open yet. > To answer your other question, the path is perfectly cycleable, as > the description suggests. But: it does not look like a cycleway and > most people stood in front of it on the ground would not call it > one. That's why Richard, who has been along the track, (and me, who > has also been on it) didn't call it one. OK, I haven't yet, and I'm going from what the County Council have said, both in the plans and in discussion with the Cycling Campaign. When I do maybe I'll find myself agreeing with you. Have they not even put direction signs for cyclists at the St Ives end? > If we tag it as one then we just create an impression amongst > someone whe tries an OSM map that cycleway doesn't mean cycleway. > It's a bad advertisement for the map. It's like going to where the > map says there is a road through, and discovering there is a > footpath - it reflects really badly. That's not a reasonable analogy. This has been done for cyclists - indeed primarily for cyclists - you're just disagreeing about the quality of what they have achieved (and I agree with you about that - it's ridiculous they haven't surfaced it), whereas asserting a way through for cars that doesn't actually exists is clearly incorrect. of the pavement cycleways in Cambridge are far worse than this even though they have a tarmac surface. David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
>> The busway people themselves are referring to it as a bridleway >> rather than a cycleway over that section. Even they wouldn't >> claim it's fit to be called a cycleway, it's just sustrans >> doing that. > > No it isn't: "From St Ives to Longstanton the path will be of a > compacted limestone material. This is a widely approved type of > surface for rural cycleways as it is much smoother than any other > gravel-type surface. It is usable for all types of bicycle and > pushchairs."[1] Selective quoting, from a section of description which goes to great lengths to call the thing a path, and not once a cycleway. But even that selective quote doesn't go so far as to call it a cycleway, just comment that it's as good as some other people have used. > There's lots of designated cycleways which are grotty in one way > or another. A national cycle route surely has to be marked as a > cycleway. The standard OSM rule is to tag what is on the ground, I thought. People will judge OSM maps by using them, and seeing how well they correspond to what they find. They want care if we say "but somebody else say this is as good as", they just care if the map matches the ground or not. To answer your other question, the path is perfectly cycleable, as the description suggests. But: it does not look like a cycleway and most people stood in front of it on the ground would not call it one. That's why Richard, who has been along the track, (and me, who has also been on it) didn't call it one. If we tag it as one then we just create an impression amongst someone whe tries an OSM map that cycleway doesn't mean cycleway. It's a bad advertisement for the map. It's like going to where the map says there is a road through, and discovering there is a footpath - it reflects really badly. Tom > >> please at least give it a surface tag to make it clear what it >> really is? > > Absolutely. > > Richard - is the County's description reasonable? Is it a decent > surface to cycle on? (not the bit east of Longstanton which is > only a temporary surface). > > David > ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On 09/11/2009 14:40, David Earl wrote: "From St Ives to Longstanton the path will be of a > compacted limestone material. This is a widely approved type of surface > for rural cycleways as it is much smoother than any other gravel-type > surface. It is usable for all types of bicycle and pushchairs."[1] sorry, missed the reference: [1] http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/access/Walking+and+cycling.htm ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On 09/11/2009 14:27, Tom Evans wrote: Incidentally, I have tagged it as bridleway, because that's what it is (I encountered a horse!), but note that the Swavesey - Cambridge bit has been tagged as cycleway. Any thoughts? >>> Definitely cycleway (with horse=yes): this will become the new >>> NCN11 shortly, so I think it is important it is marked as a >>> cycleway - that will be its principal use. > > The busway people themselves are referring to it as a bridleway > rather than a cycleway over that section. Even they wouldn't claim > it's fit to be called a cycleway, it's just sustrans doing that. No it isn't: "From St Ives to Longstanton the path will be of a compacted limestone material. This is a widely approved type of surface for rural cycleways as it is much smoother than any other gravel-type surface. It is usable for all types of bicycle and pushchairs."[1] You may disagree with the County Council (and Sustrans) about the suitability for cycling, which is why the Cycling Campaign has been pressing for it to be surfaced, but the County Council always set out with the intention of this being a cycleway. > If you are going to mark it as a cycleway (which I think would be > misleading), There's lots of designated cycleways which are grotty in one way or another. A national cycle route surely has to be marked as a cycleway. > please at least give it a surface tag to make it clear > what it really is? Absolutely. Richard - is the County's description reasonable? Is it a decent surface to cycle on? (not the bit east of Longstanton which is only a temporary surface). David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
>>> Incidentally, I have tagged it as bridleway, because that's >>> what it is (I encountered a horse!), but note that the >>> Swavesey - Cambridge bit has been tagged as cycleway. Any >>> thoughts? >> Definitely cycleway (with horse=yes): this will become the new >> NCN11 shortly, so I think it is important it is marked as a >> cycleway - that will be its principal use. The busway people themselves are referring to it as a bridleway rather than a cycleway over that section. Even they wouldn't claim it's fit to be called a cycleway, it's just sustrans doing that. If you are going to mark it as a cycleway (which I think would be misleading), please at least give it a surface tag to make it clear what it really is? Tom ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
>I cycled Swavesey - St Ives yesterday afternoon, and entered some of the data >last night. I did the bridleway rather than the actual busway, but have added >some detail for the St Ives P&R. Ah, and I was so close to going out yesterday afternoon to survey that section. :-) > >>It's a bit messy in places because of the historic stuff that's on the map >>from before the construction work, and I'd be grateful for thoughts on >>whether things should be deleted (e.g. line of disused railway?) > >You could argue that the line of the disused railway is not itself historic, >but is a current way which previously had a different use. That would suggest >that we re-tag the existing railway to be a busway, rather than deleting it >and adding a new way. Either way I agree a tidy-up would be in order. David, >did you manage to get any official permission to survey the busway itself? > >>>Incidentally, I have tagged it as bridleway, because that's what it is (I >>>encountered a horse!), but note that the Swavesey - Cambridge bit has been >>>tagged as cycleway. Any thoughts? > >That would probably be my fault then. In fact I did put horse=yes, but it >looks like highway=bridleway is what it should be. My mistake. > >Donald > ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On 09/11/2009 14:21, David Earl wrote: > On 09/11/2009 14:05, Richard Moss wrote: >> I cycled Swavesey - St Ives yesterday afternoon, and entered some of >> the data last night. I did the bridleway rather than the actual >> busway, but have added some detail for the St Ives P&R. > > Great, thanks. We can easily add correct the guidway from > >> It's a bit messy in places because of the historic stuff that's on >> the map from before the construction work, and I'd be grateful for >> thoughts on whether things should be deleted (e.g. line of disused >> railway?) > > In theory it should be able to stay with that tag as well as > highway=bus_guideway but we'll see ho it renders. > >> Incidentally, I have tagged it as bridleway, because that's what it >> is (I encountered a horse!), but note that the Swavesey - Cambridge >> bit has been tagged as cycleway. Any thoughts? > > Definitely cycleway (with horse=yes): this will become the new NCN11 > shortly, so I think it is important it is marked as a cycleway - that > will be its principal use. > > Strictly speaking, and the reason we've got a cycleway at all, its > status is a maintenance track to allow access to the busway for > maintenance vehicles. But again that's ancillary in practice. > >> Can anyone advise how accurate the naptan bus-stop positions are? >> Looking at the P&R site, either they need to be moved north-east a >> bit, or my four traverses of this stretch are wrong. > > Your survey is likely to be more accurate I think. > > David > > ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On Mon 09/11/09 12:01 , "David Earl" da...@frankieandshadow.com sent: ... [snip] Longstanton to St Ives has the final surface, not tarmac, and will formally open with the guideway, but I think it is already accessible. It still needs surveying, along with the P&R car parks and revised connections into the existing road system at St Ives, plus the additional traffic lights at each of the guideway/road crossings. If anyone's planning on doing any of those surveys, might be nice if you send an email here so we don't duplicate effort (two of us surveyed the Milton P&R site on the day it opened within minutes of each other!) David ... I cycled Swavesey - St Ives yesterday afternoon, and entered some of the data last night. I did the bridleway rather than the actual busway, but have added some detail for the St Ives P&R. It's a bit messy in places because of the historic stuff that's on the map from before the construction work, and I'd be grateful for thoughts on whether things should be deleted (e.g. line of disused railway?) Incidentally, I have tagged it as bridleway, because that's what it is (I encountered a horse!), but note that the Swavesey - Cambridge bit has been tagged as cycleway. Any thoughts? Can anyone advise how accurate the naptan bus-stop positions are? Looking at the P&R site, either they need to be moved north-east a bit, or my four traverses of this stretch are wrong. Richard ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
[Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
The County Council has announced an opening date of Sunday November 29th for the guided busway. In the meantime, Steve Chilton has released the map style change to render bus_guideway, so I'll update the track from construction a few days before opening. It'll look like a railway, but blue. (There's a very short guidway in Crawley, so you can see what it will look like here: http://osm.org/go/eurm80Msm-- - there's also one in Ipswich I believe - may need the tiles marking dirty to render it - Peter?). The cycleway alongside will be surfaced between Milton Road and Longstanton in the next few weeks - despite appearances it isn't actually open yet, though there's nothing currently to physically stop anyone using it, nor any signs saying don't, and Donald did survey this section a few weeks ago. Longstanton to St Ives has the final surface, not tarmac, and will formally open with the guideway, but I think it is already accessible. It still needs surveying, along with the P&R car parks and revised connections into the existing road system at St Ives, plus the additional traffic lights at each of the guideway/road crossings. If anyone's planning on doing any of those surveys, might be nice if you send an email here so we don't duplicate effort (two of us surveyed the Milton P&R site on the day it opened within minutes of each other!) David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
