Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Craig Wallace]

On 2016-12-05 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence
also available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the
roundabout (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance
at satellite mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it
will also highlight that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south
of the roundabout (and likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is
highly dangerous. You have to cross three lanes of traffic, and there is
always a flow of some sort, either from the A1 or from the side roads.


If there isn't any road markings, then tag it as highway=crossing, 
crossing=unmarked.


Any routing software could see that crossing tag, plus the tags for 
lanes and maxspeed etc, and warn it is potentially dangerous.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[David Earl]

I also marked some cycle crossings as hazardous, but perhaps with a certain
amount of official legitimacy, in that I was preparing the data to use in
cycle maps for Cambridgeshire County Council, and the ones I marked were
ones they had provided but *they* recognised were not satisfactory: marking
them as interim solutions, links between bits of route that they were
content with. A bit of a cop out, recommending routes but then marking them
as hazardous, but it did reflect realioty and was somewhat more objective
than just my judgement as a mapper. I can't remember the tag I used now, it
was some years ago, but it triggered a warning triangle and/or different
colour on the map rendering I was doing.

David

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 at 18:04 ael  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:12:22PM +, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence
> also available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the
> roundabout (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance
> at satellite mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will
> also highlight that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the
> roundabout (and likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly
> dangerous. You have to cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a
> flow of some sort, either from the A1 or from the side roads.
> >
>
> So far no one has mentioned the hazard tag. Surely that is the obvious
> and flexible solution here?
>
> I have tagged some dangerous open mine shafts in Cornwall with
> hazard=yes. Being too strict about what is "subjective" can get silly.
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[ael]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:12:22PM +, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> 
> At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
> available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite 
> mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight 
> that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and 
> likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to 
> cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either 
> from the A1 or from the side roads.
> 

So far no one has mentioned the hazard tag. Surely that is the obvious
and flexible solution here?

I have tagged some dangerous open mine shafts in Cornwall with
hazard=yes. Being too strict about what is "subjective" can get silly.

ael


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[David Woolley]

On 05/12/16 17:19, Colin Smale wrote:

This reminds me of "unsuitable for HGVs" which IIRC has been the subject
of debate in the past. One approach would be "hgv=unsuitable" meaning
"legally yes but not advised". That seems to be exactly what we need
here. Perhaps we could have "foot=unsuitable" for this path?



Unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles is actual signage on the ground, not 
a subjective judgement by the mapper; such signs really exist.  Allowing 
mappers to map this other than based on signage would encourage NIMBYist 
marking of roads as such.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Colin Smale]

This reminds me of "unsuitable for HGVs" which IIRC has been the subject
of debate in the past. One approach would be "hgv=unsuitable" meaning
"legally yes but not advised". That seems to be exactly what we need
here. Perhaps we could have "foot=unsuitable" for this path?

//colin 

On 2016-12-05 18:03, SK53 wrote:

> I concur with "keep it in" and help provide information for routers to 
> identify potential warnings.
> 
> There are many similar issues for pedestrians which certainly should be 
> mapped. For instance there are still many very hazardous unsigned pedestrian 
> crossing points on dual carriageways (typically where a pre-existing right of 
> way was bisected by the road). I noted several along the A45 from Northampton 
> to Brackley last Saturday, and am still eternally grateful for the re-routing 
> of a path which used to cross the A404 near Bisham. I was foolhardy to cross 
> this once before the new route was opened. Another similar pedestrian safety 
> issue are busy roads without verges or sidewalks. At least in the latter case 
> the solution is adding sidewalk and/or verge tags which allows routers & 
> renderers to avoid or highlight these less desirable possibilities.
> 
> It seems rational to approach cycle routing issues in a similar manner.
> 
> Jerry 
> 
> On 5 December 2016 at 16:31, Dave F  wrote:
> 
> It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has 
> authoritative standing.
> 
> 'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such as 
> drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the place to 
> quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to OSM is fine. Telling someone they 
> can't go there because of those rocks is wrong. Your user has decided, based 
> on experience, that he doesn't want to use it, which is fine, but he 
> shouldn't dictate that others can't.
> 
> What would benefit OSM is if the path was detailed more accurately.
> 
> Are you Traveline?
> 
> Cheers
> Dave F.
> 
> On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Greetings 
> 
> At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
> available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291 [2]). A cursory glance at 
> satellite mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also 
> highlight that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the 
> roundabout (and likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly 
> dangerous. You have to cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a 
> flow of some sort, either from the A1 or from the side roads. 
> 
> What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects 
> what is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn't an idle 
> question - a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and 
> has asked me to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts 
> to what it is that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic 
> representation of the world, regardless, or something a little different - I 
> thought I would ask for views. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Stuart 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]
> 
> -
> 
> [3]
> 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com [3] 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291
[3]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=emailutm_source=linkutm_campaign=sig-emailutm_content=emailclient___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[SK53]

I concur with "keep it in" and help provide information for routers to
identify potential warnings.

There are many similar issues for pedestrians which certainly should be
mapped. For instance there are still many very hazardous unsigned
pedestrian crossing points on dual carriageways (typically where a
pre-existing right of way was bisected by the road). I noted several along
the A45 from Northampton to Brackley last Saturday, and am still eternally
grateful for the re-routing of a path which used to cross the A404 near
Bisham. I was foolhardy to cross this once before the new route was opened.
Another similar pedestrian safety issue are busy roads without verges or
sidewalks. At least in the latter case the solution is adding sidewalk
and/or verge tags which allows routers & renderers to avoid or highlight
these less desirable possibilities.

It seems rational to approach cycle routing issues in a similar manner.

Jerry

On 5 December 2016 at 16:31, Dave F  wrote:

> It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has
> authoritative standing.
>
> 'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such
> as drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the
> place to quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to OSM is fine. Telling
> someone they can't go there because of those rocks is wrong. Your user has
> decided, based on experience, that he doesn't want to use it, which is
> fine, but he shouldn't dictate that others can't.
>
> What would benefit OSM is if the path was detailed more accurately.
>
> Are you Traveline?
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
> On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>
> Greetings
>
> At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also
> available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite
> mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight
> that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and
> likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have
> to cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort,
> either from the A1 or from the side roads.
>
> What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects
> what is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle
> question - a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and
> has asked me to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts
> to what it is that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic
> representation of the world, regardless, or something a little different -
> I thought I would ask for views.
>
> Regards,
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Dave

Don’t disagree - just wanted to see what the community thought.

Are you Traveline?

Yes, sorry - just took out my normal footer for some reason.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 5 Dec 2016, at 16:31, Dave F 
> wrote:

It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has 
authoritative standing.

'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such as 
drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the place to 
quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to OSM is fine. Telling someone they 
can't go there because of those rocks is wrong. Your user has decided, based on 
experience, that he doesn't want to use it, which is fine, but he shouldn't 
dictate that others can't.

What would benefit OSM is if the path was detailed more accurately.

Are you Traveline?

Cheers
Dave F.

On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite 
mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight 
that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and 
likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to 
cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either 
from the A1 or from the side roads.

What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects what 
is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle question 
- a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and has asked me 
to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is 
that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic representation of the 
world, regardless, or something a little different - I thought I would ask for 
views.

Regards,
Stuart






___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





[Avast logo] 


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Michael Booth]

In case you haven't seen it, the roundabout is on Mapillary from both a 
car and bike perspective: 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=W8Ri1G-L6w5ytkcMy_nv1w=map=51.6437334501=-0.254655100079=17


On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence 
also available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the 
roundabout (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory 
glance at satellite mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. 
But it will also highlight that where you cross the southbound A1 to 
the south of the roundabout (and likewise the northbound A1 to the 
north) it is highly dangerous. You have to cross three lanes of 
traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either from the A1 
or from the side roads.


What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it 
reflects what is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This 
isn’t an idle question - a user of my website has stated that it is 
dangerous to use, and has asked me to remove it. My conclusion was to 
leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is that is being produced here 
- an accurate cartographic representation of the world, regardless, or 
something a little different - I thought I would ask for views.


Regards,
Stuart





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Dave F]

It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has 
authoritative standing.


'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such 
as drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the 
place to quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to OSM is fine. Telling 
someone they can't go there because of those rocks is wrong. Your user 
has decided, based on experience, that he doesn't want to use it, which 
is fine, but he shouldn't dictate that others can't.


What would benefit OSM is if the path was detailed more accurately.

Are you Traveline?

Cheers
Dave F.

On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence 
also available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the 
roundabout (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory 
glance at satellite mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. 
But it will also highlight that where you cross the southbound A1 to 
the south of the roundabout (and likewise the northbound A1 to the 
north) it is highly dangerous. You have to cross three lanes of 
traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either from the A1 
or from the side roads.


What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it 
reflects what is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This 
isn’t an idle question - a user of my website has stated that it is 
dangerous to use, and has asked me to remove it. My conclusion was to 
leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is that is being produced here 
- an accurate cartographic representation of the world, regardless, or 
something a little different - I thought I would ask for views.


Regards,
Stuart





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Shaun McDonald]

Hi Stuart,

I'd keep it in, ensure other object information such as the number of lanes is 
included within the data. Then the routing engine can take account of the 
additional information, such as avoiding, but not exempting (thus creating 
islands that you can't walk out of) at crossing points that cross 3 lanes of 
traffic. You can also present a warning that there is an uncontrolled crossing 
and you need to cross 3 lanes of traffic if this is the only suitable route.

Shaun

> On 5 Dec 2016, at 16:12, Stuart Reynolds  
> wrote:
> 
> Greetings
> 
> At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
> available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291 
> ). A cursory glance at satellite 
> mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight 
> that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and 
> likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to 
> cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either 
> from the A1 or from the side roads.
> 
> What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects 
> what is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle 
> question - a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and 
> has asked me to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts 
> to what it is that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic 
> representation of the world, regardless, or something a little different - I 
> thought I would ask for views.
> 
> Regards,
> Stuart
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb