See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95752985#map=18/51.46201/-0.12146&layers=C <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95752985#map=18/51.46201/-0.12146&layers=C>
There appear to be a large number of sections of road in some areas of London tagged as ‘cycle route’ that are no more than the occasional 1057 cycle symbol painted on the road. They are not signed, and do not have any route numbering. Based on the discussion it appears - most were added by user MacLondon - they were the ‘lowest level’ of route designation by some councils at some time in the past. Pick some ‘useful routes’ on ‘quiet roads’ and just paint some symbols on them for people to follow Some of these appear on the last 2015 TfL cycle maps in yellow (routes were blue) keyed as ‘other roads recommended by cyclists’ My opinion is - these are not followable on the ground - they do not meet TfL or borough quality criteria (and thus do not appear on any more recent maps) eg - they are not shown in any way on Lambeth councils 2017 cycle map https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map <https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map> - they decrease legibility of the map because they create a mass of dense blue lines from which it’s hard to pick out genuinely useful routes. - they probably have a negative impact on routing engines as they are likely treated equally to actual signposted routes. - in many cases where they do show the most direct route through backstreets that is likely to be the busiest with rat running traffic as it’s where google and Waze will send drivers. Thoughts?
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
