On 25/4/20 8:55 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
Willoughby Council (Sydney, NSW) has recently been refreshing its
cycle route signage, so I've been riding the routes and reviewing
tagging in OSM. Before I go and make a whole lot of changes, I just
wanted to confirm best practice.
1. Infrastructure:
Painted road markings (but no cycle lane) and/or street signs
indicating cycle route:
cycleway=shared_lane
eg
https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020-04-24%2022_01_11-NSW%20Bushwalking%20Maps.png
Painted cycle lane:
cycleway=lane
https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020-04-24%2022_03_56-NSW%20Bushwalking%20Maps.png
This seems to be my interpretation of:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
2. Cycle Routes:
Use of network=lcn vs lcn=yes - I assume network=lcn is preferred to
lcn=yes? Quite a lot of the current routes have lcn=yes.
Alternatively, should I be trying to create relations? The problem
with relations is that the cycleways all interconnect. So while there
may be a sensible route from any suburb in Willoughby to any other
suburb, but it doesn't seem to lend itself to a collection of
relations. Certainly the signage at any given spot just points you to
the next suburb.
The link below shows the approximate network (not all are yet
built/marked - I'll be updating OSM on the basis of ground surveys)
http://edocs.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/DocumentViewer.ashx?dsi=2914874
I don't see that it easily lends itself to relations.
My opinion.
Routes go from A to B. They are not simple road segments.
An example?
Relation: Northbridge-Castle Cove (6282327)
Tags:
"name"="Northbridge-Castle Cove"
"ref"="NCC"
"route"="bicycle"
"type"="route"
"lcn"="yes"
"network"="Willoughby"
The above is correct.
It contains numerous road segments (ways). Some of these are tagged
lcn=yes. This is wrong.
Example?
Way: Baringa Road (794266238)
Tags:
"source:name"="historical"
"surface"="paved"
"maxspeed"="50"
"name"="Baringa Road"
"source"="yahoo_imagery"
"highway"="residential"
"cycleway"="shared_lane"
"network"="lcn"
There should be no "network"="lcn" on the as it does not, by itself,
form a route.
Similarly I would remove the tag "lcn=yes" on any simple way.
(I would also remove the source tag - I would assume that the state
source is old and there would have been a few edits of this from other
sources in the mean time.)
Some routes will use the same ways as another route. That is fine, happens.
Some bicycle routes use parts of hiking routes, sometimes bus routes etc
etc. This too is fine.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
