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" <inas66+...@gmail.com> 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 > 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 <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
