date:20190930

Re: [talk-au] Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

2019-09-30 Thread Phil Wyatt

Hi there Herbert.Remi,

 

These rants are starting to look like the work of a troll. Can I suggest in the 
next ‘Discussion’ you give us your OSM name so we can study your contribution 
to the project in a meaningful way. Your lack of response to any emails is 
concerning.

 

No response will indicate you are just trolling the mailing list and I will 
seek to have you removed.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Herbert.Remi via Talk-au [mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2019 12:49 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

 

# Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

*ACT bike routes (relations) need updating with the new nomenclature for the 
ACT. Australian Tagging Guidelines (ATG) needs to update too which I will draft 
at some stage.*

Relations in the ACT are often out of date and troublesome to update. The 
“signed bike path” relation in OSM belong to these “official routes” that get 
little attention. The nomenclature for routes in the ACT has changed. OSM ACT 
requires an update so that the “signed routes” relations are named correctly.

A few things need to be discussed:

- Where to get the official “signed routes”

- The ACT government is very poor at updating the signage

- Not all useful routes are official

- Are there copyright issue with sourcing routes from the Active Travel

Infrastructure Practitioner Tool?

 

## Where to get the official “signed routes”

The nomenclature for routes in the ACT is outlined in the document:

The Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim 
Planning Guideline, Transport Canberra and City Services, January 2019. (abbr. 
PATA)

https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1378545/Planning-for-Active-Travel-in-the-ACT.pdf

 

The mapping of the routes themselves is documented in the Active Travel Routes 
Alignments (ATRA) available through the Active Travel Infrastructure 
Practitioner Tool:

http://ACTiveinfrastructure.net.au

 

Yes, this is a mapping tool.

The routes can be seen on a new map “Your guide to cycling in Canberra” 
(release January 2019). The map is published by Transport Canberra (TCCS). The 
map is worth a look and can be purchased online.

 

## The new nomenclature in the ACT

The Active Travel Routes (ATR) consists of five route types: (PATA, page 19)

1. Community Routes for walking and cycling make up the bulk of the routes with 
facilities...;

2. On-Road Cycling Routes provide facilities to cater to the transport, fitness 
and recreational needs of a subset of generally fitter and faster cyclists 
comfortable riding on the roadway;

3. Accessible Pedestrian Routes identify the essential walking and wheelchair 
access routes to cater specifically for the needs of people with visual or 
mobility impairments;

4. Recreational Routes are those routes that include trails and paths specially 
developed for recreational and tourist purposes, for example, the Canberra 
Centenary Trail (CCT) and Lake Circuits (e.g. LBG); and

5. Equestrian Routes identify the alignments of the trails and corridors for 
equestrian use including the Bicentennial National Trail (BNT).

 

It is the Community Routes that are interesting for the cyclists and are ranked 
as we do with roads (motorway, trunk, primary, etc). But the names are 
different: principal, main, local and access. I think it only necessary to 
create relations for the first two types. Examples of the numbering 
nomenclature are provided.

Community Routes (PATA, page 22)

- Principal Community Routes (PCRs) Numbered M100, M200 etc to M900

- Main Community Routes (MCRs) Numbered M110, M120 etc. to M990

- Local Community Routes (LCRs)

- Access Community Routes (ACRs)

 

## Updating the signage

The ACT Government is very slow to provide adequate signage and just as bad at 
updating it. The lack of due diligence by the ACT Government means that the 
signage may be inconsistent for a decade.

The “what’s there” OSM verification test fails in this case for signage. Whats 
there is often wrong and ignored. Many cycle groups in the ACT are lobbing the 
ACT Government to fix. A better approach would be to label the routes using the 
official nomenclature. This is what I propose here.

 

## Unofficial routes

ACT OSM has quite a few unofficial routes. This makes sense. If the ACT 
Government does not build many new bike paths. There are often gaps in the 
network (missing links) and official routes end suddenly. To ride anywhere 
requires the use of unofficial routes. The OSM mappers have simply documented 
what is common practice. The unofficial routes may include back streets or 
footpaths, and paved paths across parks and along lanes between houses. The 
last two are common in Canberra suburbs. You will find unofficial routes in the 
ACT crossing straight across suburbs and connecting high schools with adjacent 
suburbs. All very

[talk-au] Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

2019-09-30 Thread Herbert.Remi via Talk-au

# Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)
*ACT bike routes (relations) need updating with the new nomenclature for the
ACT. Australian Tagging Guidelines (ATG) needs to update too which I will draft
at some stage.*
Relations in the ACT are often out of date and troublesome to update. The
“signed bike path” relation in OSM belong to these “official routes” that get
little attention. The nomenclature for routes in the ACT has changed. OSM ACT
requires an update so that the “signed routes” relations are named correctly.
A few things need to be discussed:
- Where to get the official “signed routes”
- The ACT government is very poor at updating the signage
- Not all useful routes are official
- Are there copyright issue with sourcing routes from the Active Travel
Infrastructure Practitioner Tool?

## Where to get the official “signed routes”
The nomenclature for routes in the ACT is outlined in the document:
The Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim
Planning Guideline, Transport Canberra and City Services, January 2019. (abbr.
PATA)
https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1378545/Planning-for-Active-Travel-in-the-ACT.pdf

The mapping of the routes themselves is documented in the Active Travel Routes
Alignments (ATRA) available through the Active Travel Infrastructure
Practitioner Tool:
http://ACTiveinfrastructure.net.au

Yes, this is a mapping tool.
The routes can be seen on a new map “Your guide to cycling in Canberra”
(release January 2019). The map is published by Transport Canberra (TCCS). The
map is worth a look and can be purchased online.

## The new nomenclature in the ACT
The Active Travel Routes (ATR) consists of five route types: (PATA, page 19)
1. Community Routes for walking and cycling make up the bulk of the routes with
facilities...;
2. On-Road Cycling Routes provide facilities to cater to the transport, fitness
and recreational needs of a subset of generally fitter and faster cyclists
comfortable riding on the roadway;
3. Accessible Pedestrian Routes identify the essential walking and wheelchair
access routes to cater specifically for the needs of people with visual or
mobility impairments;
4. Recreational Routes are those routes that include trails and paths specially
developed for recreational and tourist purposes, for example, the Canberra
Centenary Trail (CCT) and Lake Circuits (e.g. LBG); and
5. Equestrian Routes identify the alignments of the trails and corridors for
equestrian use including the Bicentennial National Trail (BNT).

It is the Community Routes that are interesting for the cyclists and are ranked
as we do with roads (motorway, trunk, primary, etc). But the names are
different: principal, main, local and access. I think it only necessary to
create relations for the first two types. Examples of the numbering
nomenclature are provided.
Community Routes (PATA, page 22)
- Principal Community Routes (PCRs) Numbered M100, M200 etc to M900
- Main Community Routes (MCRs) Numbered M110, M120 etc. to M990
- Local Community Routes (LCRs)
- Access Community Routes (ACRs)

## Updating the signage
The ACT Government is very slow to provide adequate signage and just as bad at
updating it. The lack of due diligence by the ACT Government means that the
signage may be inconsistent for a decade.
The “what’s there” OSM verification test fails in this case for signage. Whats
there is often wrong and ignored. Many cycle groups in the ACT are lobbing the
ACT Government to fix. A better approach would be to label the routes using the
official nomenclature. This is what I propose here.

## Unofficial routes
ACT OSM has quite a few unofficial routes. This makes sense. If the ACT
Government does not build many new bike paths. There are often gaps in the
network (missing links) and official routes end suddenly. To ride anywhere
requires the use of unofficial routes. The OSM mappers have simply documented
what is common practice. The unofficial routes may include back streets or
footpaths, and paved paths across parks and along lanes between houses. The
last two are common in Canberra suburbs. You will find unofficial routes in the
ACT crossing straight across suburbs and connecting high schools with adjacent
suburbs. All very practical.
This should be encouraged as it is useful for day-to-day cycling and routing,
and secondly, documents common practice. It should also prove useful for
cycling advocacy in Canberra.

## Sourcing data from the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool
Copyright is an issue with OSM (or so I have been told) and is being
investigated in this case. Feel welcome to give me tips on how to go about
this. Inquiries are ongoing.

I welcome your comments.
keyword: Australia, ACT, routes, relations, ACT Government, active travel,
Community Routes, CCT, BNT, ATR, TCCS___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

83 matches

Mail list logo