On 14/08/2020 13:55, Simon Still wrote: > See the blog posts that I linked to. > Plus > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database > > (Our involvement has now ended but TfL should be continuing to use CID > info to improve OSM accuracy) > > More discussion planned within LCC and community to press for better > navigation and wayfinding
I look forward to seeing how the discussion progresses. >>> Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but >>> some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked >>> routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths, >>> traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad, >>> smooth tarmac good) >> >> Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have >> surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently >> might help. > > Good to know surface is already widely used - I’d managed to miss that > in the work I’d done. > Smoothness is a new tag for me One way to improve surface=* tagging (and also lit=*) might be to encourage people to install the Street Complete mobile app and try using it when they go for a walk. It's very good at finding gaps even in places mapped with a lot of detail. > What has come up in discussions is that it would be good to map > ‘restrictions’ more comprehensively and have routing algorithms that > recognised them. > > There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have > many - rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width > restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii. > All of those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo > bike or disability adapted cycle. On towpaths, they will often be tagged with highway=footway + bicycle=permissive + towpath=yes. There are times when I would prefer to use a route which avoided towpaths as much as possible, particularly the Regent's Canal and places where boats are moored. Having them mapped is one thing, but persuading any developers of routing software that there might be enough demand to add it as a routing option is another. > An objective would be to be able to plan a ‘disabled suitable route’ Asking people to add data at street crossings (particularly crossings of segregated cycle tracks) like dropped kerbs and tactile paving might be helpful in this respect, even when it is not of direct use to cyclists. It might not hurt LCC's case to be seen to be assisting VI pedestrians. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
