On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:11:20PM +, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
- Local cycle networks with objective, on-the-ground evidence
(usually signposts) are tagged as lcn=yes (and lcn_ref=...,
lcn_name=..., or the relations equivalent) as at present.
This sounds reasonable. Round here (Oxford),
In your first example,
they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892
Seems to be located on Northmoor Road according to the accompanying
map, yet the route seems to be drawn on Charlbury Road. Is the photo
just wrongly located in cycle streets, or has the route changed and
the sign is
The geolocation in cyclestreets is wrong. The route has been on Charlbury
Road since the early nineties, and the signs since the late nineties.
There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put up in
various places.
Richard
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ed Loach
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:05:52PM +, Ed Loach wrote:
In your first example,
they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892
Seems to be located on Northmoor Road according to the accompanying
map, yet the route seems to be drawn on Charlbury Road.
The geolocation was wrong -
Richard Mann wrote:
There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put
up in various places.
Not sure which stickers you're referring to, but IIRC Sustrans 'Ranger'
stickers are approved for use by almost all highway authorities in England,
including Oxfordshire. (The two I'm
They're not approved in the signs regs, which I think has jurisdiction.
IANAL etc.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Richard Mann wrote:
There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put
up in various places.
Not sure which
: Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
They're not approved in the signs regs, which I think has jurisdiction.
IANAL etc.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Richard Mann wrote:
There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put
up
Works for me
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net]
Sent: 28 November 2011 17:11
To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Hello all,
We seem to be ending up with wildly conflicting use of 'lcn=yes
In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are
both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Thinking about it, I reckon official/operator/signposted tags on the
relation are a better approach, since the matter is rarely quite as yes/no
as defining a separate network. Might have to break some relations into
sections, to reflect the officialness and signpostedness of different
sections,
This sounds a bit like yes it is/oh no it isn't tags. If it's not an
actual cycle route, then it shouldn't be otherwise identically tagged
but just with additional official=no or operator=Some Wishful
Thinkers. I think your earlier suggestion of tagging them separately
to lcn/ncn/rcn would be
On 29 November 2011 09:17, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are
both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts.
In what way? They are both signed cycle routes covering a reasonably
local
On 28/11/2011 18:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(for example, I'm group co-ordinator for North West Oxfordshire
and have tagged those routes in our area which are under discussion
with local councils and are likely to open in the next few years)
What tags did you use?
Dave F.
Hello all,
We seem to be ending up with wildly conflicting use of 'lcn=yes',
'lcn_ref=*', and similar tags across Britain.
In London, these tags are used as you would expect - to map the
signposted London Cycle Network. It's pretty much in keeping with ncn=
and rcn= tagging.
In Worcester,
I've done a bulk of the Nottingham one (especially in the South and East)
and have generally followed the following rules (which others in the area
appear to have followed too)
1. If it's got NCN numbers it's NCN - From the last sign I continue it
until the next junction (e.g. NCN 15 is only
On 28/11/2011 18:29, SomeoneElse wrote:
The problem with proposed routes is that they don't exist yet and so
the usual on the ground check is difficult.
Then don't map them. Seriously, if these networks aren't at the
implementation stage, there's little point in adding them to OSM. Even
Someoneelse wrote:
Thanks Andy. Makes sense to me. Do you know if there is anywhere
a list of proposed Sustrans routes (not based on OS mapping
hopefully) that could be used for fact-checking some of the more
wishful proposed cycle ways in OSM?
Andy R and I have a list of three-digit NCN
Jonathan Bennett wrote:
Then don't map them. Seriously, if these networks aren't at the
implementation stage, there's little point in adding them to OSM. Even
worse, if a route relies on some improvement work (e.g. clearing of a
railway trackbed) that hasn't been done, having the route there
I guess the big-society-defined ones can be ccn and Andy can include them
or not as he chooses.
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
19 matches
Mail list logo
