Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain? cheers Richard That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility cycling. Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists (typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In an ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up, but given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of duck-tagging is appropriate. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
But why does this need special treatment? We don't do it for any other mode of transport. Cheers Andy From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com] Sent: 10 May 2012 10:08 To: Richard Fairhurst Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain? cheers Richard That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility cycling. Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists (typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In an ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up, but given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of duck-tagging is appropriate. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
We do it for motorised vehicles. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: But why does this need special treatment? We don’t do it for any other mode of transport. ** ** Cheers Andy ** ** *From:* Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 10 May 2012 10:08 *To:* Richard Fairhurst *Cc:* talk@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes ** ** On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain? cheers Richard That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility cycling. Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists (typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In an ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up, but given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of duck-tagging is appropriate. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On 05/10/2012 11:08 AM, Richard Mann wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain? cheers Richard That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). Again: The lines on the map of the city of Utrecht are not routes at all. They are roughly the ways busiest with cyclist radiating out of the central railway station. Even for it's purpose it is fairly useless, since it misses all the important tangential routes. There are similar maps made by the city of Utrecht for car traffic. As usual the holy cow of western society (the car) gets more attention and these maps have move detail (like traffic in tangential directions and neighbourhood feeders). The local mappers used these as a rough guideline for which roads to map as primary, secondary and tertiary. That is the normal flow of information. You can use the (overly) generalized maps made for policy making to selectively add information to OSM, but making these style of maps always requires human editors of the map (not just of the map data). --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On 10/05/2012 13:02, Cartinus wrote: the holy cow of western society (the car) You mean the means of locomotion which has been chosen by the majority given freedom of choice? -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On 05/10/2012 02:15 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: given freedom of choice? This is getting way off-topic, but... I know it is hard to accept for a lot of people, but the more people you put in a smaller space the less freedom of choice you have. For an example you might understand given your previous reaction: Look at how many people living on Manhattan (NY) own a car. --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On 10/05/2012 13:41, Cartinus wrote: On 05/10/2012 02:15 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: given freedom of choice? This is getting way off-topic, but... I know it is hard to accept for a lot of people, but the more people you put in a smaller space the less freedom of choice you have. For an example you might understand given your previous reaction: Look at how many people living on Manhattan (NY) own a car. Nope, no idea what you're getting at here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be recorded, so different renderings can be produced for different purposes (and indeed routers can use the information as well, if they want to). I know that different route networks apply for different purposes in my city (and have tagged and rendered accordingly); I just thought it interesting to note that that difference was also regarded as obvious in a major Dutch city. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On 2012-05-09 14:11, Richard Mann wrote: My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be recorded, so different renderings can be produced for different purposes (and indeed routers can use the information as well, if they want to). I know that different route networks apply for different purposes in my city (and have tagged and rendered accordingly); I just thought it interesting to note that that difference was also regarded as obvious in a major Dutch city. I think the lines on [1] are merely a guideline for cyclists what the recommended route from the suburbs to the city center is. If they are signposted then only by official roadsigns (like these here [2]) but these are not cycleroutes, just as destinations for cars on roadsigns are not carroutes. On the OCM there are different things highlighted. - in blue dashed lines: cycleways (highway=cycleway) - in red (solid on zoom = 12, opaque on zoom 12): national (leisure) cycleroutes - in light blue: regional cycleroutes - in dark blue: local cycleroutes These are described on [3] and have specific signposts showing the route and intermediate points. [1] http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/looking-down-on-cyclists/ [2] http://www.alleplaatsenopdefiets.nl/images/wegwijzer.jpg [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederlandse_Fietsroutes Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
Richard Mann wrote: My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be recorded We tag what's on the ground, whether it's route signage, cycle-specific infrastructure, or a giant woolly mammoth (http://url.ie/f9ts). Are you suggesting a deviation from that? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-cycle-map-excessive-focus-on-long-distance-routes-tp5697183p5697391.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
You'd have to ask the City of Utrecht whether their main cycle routes are signed. If they've officially identified a particular set of routes, that would seem to be fairly clear-cut. See their city website: http://www.utrecht.nl/images/dso/infraprojecten/fiets/fietsroutes.html Richard On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Richard Mann wrote: My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be recorded We tag what's on the ground, whether it's route signage, cycle-specific infrastructure, or a giant woolly mammoth (http://url.ie/f9ts). Are you suggesting a deviation from that? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-cycle-map-excessive-focus-on-long-distance-routes-tp5697183p5697391.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
Richard Mann wrote: You'd have to ask the City of Utrecht whether their main cycle routes are signed. Well, ok, I wasn't really asking what I'd have to ask, more what your point is. :) If the routes are signed, that's good. If there are measurements that can be tagged in OSM (vehicles per hour, or surface quality, or whatever), that's good too. Anything objective can be tagged, and rendered by a Maperitive guru such as yourself. openwoollymammothmap.org is still there for the taking. But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain? cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
On May 9, 2012 11:27 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 05/09/2012 10:54 AM, Richard Mann wrote: Obviously, OCM can render what it likes, but I think this neatly illustrates that OSM tagging of cycle routes is missing a trick or two. The first map in your mail is the kind of map civil servants use in their policy documents. In other words completely useless to anybody in their daily lives. OCM shows what's really important: * The dotted blue lines are all the cycleways. * The rest of the blue stuff is where people cycle recreationally. The dotted blue lines are often designated paths. The rest of the blue stuff is often primarily transportation oriented. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
