I think what you say makes sense Ben, its pretty much the default OSM test, can you see it on the ground ?
What's not so clear to me is what you hope to achieve. Do you want to attach the (eg) lcn= to individual (qualifying) roads or bundle them together into routes ? The latter makes more sense IMHO and would be best done as a relation. Be good to see the outcome of your deliberations appear on the Australian tagging guidelines page. David . Ben Kelley <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi. > >I think we should specify a little more what constitutes a cycle route on >the tagging guidelines. > >Some background: For the cycle map layer you can tag any way as a local >cycle route (lcn=*), a regional cycle route (rcn=*) or a national cycle >route (ncn=*). The tag can be applied to the way, or a relation can be >defined. On the cycle map these ways are highlighted, and some routing >engines use this information to route cyclists differently to other >vehicles. (e.g. ridethecity.com) > >In some sense, any street or path you can ride a bike on is a potential >"cycle route", but I don't think this makes it a cycle route in the OSM >sense. > >I would reason that the way (streets especially) need some kind of marking >(signs, or road markings such as painted bike symbols) to indicate that the >arm of government who maintains that street has designated the street to be >a cycle route, before we mark it as a cycle route in OSM. Does that seem >reasonable? > >Where it gets more complicated is when we start to think what kind of >marking we should expect to see on the ground before we say that this is a >cycle route in the OSM sense. The same applies when deciding that some >street is not really a cycle route. > >Note that I am not talking about a legal definition on whether you can ride >a bike there (bicycle=yes or bicycle=no), and I am not talking about how we >tag paths/footpaths/cycleways. That is a different discussion. > >How about the following cases: (bicycle=yes is true for all of these) > >Some that are not cycle routes: > >* Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing >this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route. >* As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would >say this is not a cycle route. >* As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street >to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a >cycle route in the OSM sense. >* As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle >route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets >do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly >common. I would say this is not a cycle route. > >Tricky ones: > >* A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In >fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its "cycle >route". This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the >(copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. >* A section of street that does not have any markings connects other >streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). >Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a >cycle route. This also is tricky. >* A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. >I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it >is. >* A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to >ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known >cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is. > >Easier ones: > >* In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared use >path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle route. >* A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted >on the road. Signs every 500m saying "Cycle Route". Signs at every >intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes >this is a cycle route. > >I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned >with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed >to "I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down." > > - Ben Kelley. > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-au mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
