On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Mike Boos <mike.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've noticed some users have begun tagging some roads in a number of Canadian > cities with lcn=yes tags, which are intended for marking local cycling > routes. My understanding of the lcn tag was that it was intended for marking > designated routes, not just any old way that is potentially bikeable or > personal preferences cycling routes.
Hi Mike: Thanks for the heads-up about your intentions. Yes, I agree with your characterization that lcn=yes (either directly on a way or on a route relation with ways collected together as elements) is for "designated" routes. And that is one way to do it: another is if you know the "level" of either federal, provincial or local) where you might tag network=ncn, rcn or lcn in a bicycle route relation. These routes might be designated by a government (federal, provincial or local) or a "cycling group" (could be a non-profit or for-profit member organization). And/or they might be a proposal before a government body (for example, if a set of bicycle infrastructure so tagged has a numbering protocol which organizes that set), in which case you'd add state=proposed, then OpenCycleMap would render the route lines as dashed instead of solid. But yes: OSM has reached a consensus that such routes designated in our map data are not "simply personal preferences" by a single person who wishes to organize bicycle routes, whether on infrastructure tagged with bicycle-ish tags like highway=cycleway or cycleway=lane, or not. They are either signed on the ground or perhaps published as a paper or online map by a government or bike non-profit who has organized infrastructure together as routes and publishes those. > For many roads, the lcn tag seems redundant, since these ways are already > tagged with cycleway=lane or something similar, and there is no accompanying > lcn_ref tag to provide information on individual route names or numbers (if > they exist). Other roads have been tagged, but have no infrastructure or > signage, which suggests someone is simply marking their personal routes. There really are two tagging schemes going on here, for different purposes: one is tagging infrastructure (nothing to do with lcn or lcn_ref), like highway=cycleway or cycleway=lane or bicycle=yes (there are others). The other is specifically for routes, and these include lcn (or much less commonly lcn_ref) and/or a relation with tags type=route, route=bicycle and usually a network=*cn (lcn, rcn, ncn, icn). A newer (though established in both Canada and the USA) tag of "cycle_network" is also being applied, this helps to disambiguate specific bicycle networks which share the same network "level." The lcn tag isn't redundant: a way can be tagged as bicycle infrastructure (and that is one thing) independent of being part of a bicycle route. The lcn tag is used when (USUALLY, perhaps ALWAYS or NEARLY ALWAYS) bicycle infrastructure IS part of a (local) route. Bicycle infrastructure can be so tagged while NOT being part of a route, but the converse usually isn't true. > I'd like to think I have some sort of expertise in what constitutes an > official local cycling route in my area, having served as a member and later > chair of the Kitchener Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee for several > years. There are some signed routes that myself and others in the area have > properly marked with relations. But is my understanding of what the lcn tag > is for wrong? I'd like to know before I start cleaning things up. I would strongly agree with you that signed-on-the-ground routes (almost always part of a "network") should be mapped in OSM and that "casual" or "personal" routes should not be mapped in OSM. Again, an exception can be a formal proposal for a network or numbering protocol which has been introduced before a government body and is either in the process of being approved or implemented. For example, routes in the USBRS, USA's national bicycle routing network / ncn have been emerging over the last several years and will take many more years to complete as the network gets "built out". In the interests of gaining a solid understanding of this (and to "keep your sanity!" while learning), I recommend that you FIRST "get infrastructure tagging correct" on the ways which are actually bicycle infrastructure: highway=cycleway, cycleway=lane, and so on. SECOND, assemble these bicycle infrastructure elements into route relations (type=route, route=bicycle, network=lcn/rcn/ncn/icn). I speak from deep experience: sticking to that ordering, while not required, really helps. Take your time (over weeks) and watch Cycle Map layer render infrastructure tags a certain way and route relations in a certain way. I'm not saying "tag for the renderer," I am saying "tag correctly (by what our wiki says) and you'll get great results rendered." Please take a look at these wiki pages of ours: https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Cycle_routes (the definitive guide to routing, but not infrastructure) https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks (how the USA assigns routes to the various levels of national, regional, local) https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System (the specific example of how far along the USA is in implementing its national cycleway network) https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network (has a section both for Canada and USA) https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada#Trans_Canada_Trail (brief, but local) https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/FR:Route_verte (in French, but how one province implements a regional cycleway network's routes in OSM) In the latter, especially note the table near the end after "Voici les attributs recommendés les segments associés à chacun des types:" It shows how all member elements of the routes have specific infrastructure tags for bicycles. That's right! If Canada would like to create a https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada/Bicycle_Networks wiki, I'd be delighted to help. Asking questions is great, I hope I have provided you with some answers. SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
