Thanks for telling us how to toggle the various layers - quite neat (the visible but not click-able even more handy!)
The rest of this message may appear to be a bit negative, but it's not supposed to be - hopefully it's constructive feedback! What would be useful is for there to be a way of picking out features / icon-ising them (e.g. cycle barriers/parking) - is there any chance of a GPX with those sorts of things in (making it trivial to copy to our GPSes for double checking OTG)? I'm not convinced some of the matching has been too brilliant - for example on Daleside Road it's put a cycleway (well footpath full of paint) as the LCN, then put the "A-Road" Daleside Road alongside it as an LCN too - the signage does all point to the "cycleway". Additionally some of the bits have no textual data in them - spotted a few along Maid Marian Way (See http://imageshack.us/f/835/mainmarianway.png/ ) for an example. There are a number in the city centre. It would also be handy to edit the data before merging - for instance down the Nottingham and Beeston Canal they have "lcn:name=Nottingham Canal" but all the signage around the whole of the 16km circular route (and all other publicity) calls it "THE BIG TRACK" (although to be fair most of the usable signs have gone up in the last few weeks, the previous signs were about the size of a beer mat!) Something odd has also gone on with the import south of the Broadmarsh Bus Station - if you find "Carrington Street" its to the east of it, just north of the canal - two random bent lines with no labels! http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/337/broadmarshcentre.png/ (I think they are the roads into/out of the bus station). Finally bicycle=no would be handy to have in a different colour. (And est_width 2.5 seams to mean 25cm in Nottingham, although generally they seam to be reasonably accurate (i.e. 1.25)) Taken as a whole the data seams to be useful for finding locations to go and survey but not for importing - it's just too bitty and out of touch with reality (especially if we try and keep in touch with the OTG signage/logic). Then again perhaps my logic has been flawed - basically:- - If it has NCN route numbers (6,15,64) on the signs it's ncn:yes; ncn:ref:6/15/64 - If it's a non-NCN named route crossing county boundaries (i.e. The Erewash Valley Trail) it's rcn:yes. - If it's a non-NCN named route within Nottinghamshire (e.g. The Big Track, New Basford Avoiding Tram Tracks) it's lcn:yes and gets a relation with it's name in it. - If it has blue signs pointing to a destination (e.g. West Bridgford, Emmanuel School) it's lcn:yes - when a cycle path is adjacent to a road the LCN is on the cycle path unless the signage/road markings makes it obvious it's not. - If it has blue signs but with no directional signage it's either highway:cycleway; or bicycle:yes - If it has a cycle lane it's simply cycleway:lane *Slightly OT 1*: What would be even more useful would be for Nottingham City Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council to actually sign all these cycle routes - the named LCN "The Green Line" is a really useful cut through through West Bridgford with lots of tyre tracks down it (and IME more cyclists than peds - not too surprising when it runs from the edge of the town centre to the high school on the outskirts of the town and is parallel to a main road for it's entire route) but is spoilt with steps at either end - alas the only signs present are "Public Footpath". There are numerous routes like this I have spotted (both with the city's paper maps and the DfT data). The OTG routes, and this DfT data, are full of holes in the network - the printed maps seam to take the path of least resistance between the gaps in the DfT data! *Slightly OT* 2 : Where do we stand on naming routes which aren't named on the ground (or in the DfT data)? - the "Clifton Commuter Cycle Route" for instance is obvious to work out when you know the three ends are NTU City campus, NTU Clifton campus and Clifton centre (i.e. follow the LCN signs for Clifton, NTU Clifton, and City Centre / NTU City) but the only place with those destinations and the route name is council publicity. The three commuter cycle routes would be handy to have on OpenCycleMap as they are generally very quick routes which are easy to follow and have few things to get in the way (although only of one them is anything more than signs put alongside the bus lanes and a few ASLs). Kev On 16 November 2011 14:32, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 November 2011 11:52, Andy Robinson <ajrli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Andy, > > > > Just some observations from Birmingham that may be useful. > > > > I'm assuming that you have been able to look at the dft data to see how > > relevant it is? > > I haven't seen any of the data for any place that I'm personally > familiar with. I have, however, seen all the different things that > were to be surveyed, and a lot of it is exactly the kind of thing that > we'd normally collect. Some of the things that would be useful but is > generally unsurveyed in OSM - such as lighting status of paths, or > widths of cycle lanes - would be quite interesting to add into OSM. > > > In working with Birmingham City Council (BCC) on cycle > > parking recently I had access to three lists of cycle parking points. The > > very incomplete BCC asset register list, the dft list and our own OSM > list. > > I'd expect the DfT data to have stuff we have, have stuff we don't, > and to miss out stuff we have too! > > Cheers, > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
