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
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 13:02, 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 11:08 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst 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). 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
We do it for motorised vehicles. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Andy Robinson 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 > 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
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 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 Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst 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 May 9, 2012 11:27 AM, "Cartinus" 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
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
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. --- m.v.g., Cartinus (Who's living in Utrecht) ___ 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
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 wrote: > 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: > 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
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
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
[OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
Richard, > A Dutchman posted a map of the main cycle routes in Utrecht, and I asked > why it looked so different to OSM/OCM > http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/looking-down-on-cyclists/ > > Q: Why does the map above look different to what?s in OpenStreetMap? > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.0924&lon=5.1317&zoom=12&layers=C > A: The map here shows only those routes the city thinks are main routes. In > reality there are far more routes and far more streets with cycling > infrastructure (almost all major streets) as you can see in OpenStreetMap. > The few red lines you see in OpenStreetMap are the national cycle routes > but they have nothing to do with main routes in the city. > > "the national cycle routes ... have nothing to do with main routes in the > city" > > 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 > I would not agree with this criticism. Routes on OSM do correspond (or should correspond) to signposted routes on the ground. There are intentionally different levels: international, national, regional, local routes. With regard to long-distance routes, these are indeed in many cases not the routes that local commuters would use. They are intended for cycle tourists. Routes for commuters are a different story. Firstly, they are in most cases individual - each commuter wants to go from his home to his place of work. Secondly, I would expect that commuters or local users would end up in local or regional cycle routes (dark and light blue routes in OCM). In the Utrecht example, it's not clear whether the "main cycle routes" shown in https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/looking-down-on-cyclists/ are signposted routes or simply the streets/cyclepaths most used by local commuters. If the latter, than OSM cannot tag them anyway, because there is nothing on the ground that tells about routes streeets/cyclepaths preferred by the users. A local commuter should in fact use services like cyclestreets (or the local equivalent) to establish his preferred daily commute. Occasional users should orient themselves by following signposted routes. Or have I completely misunderstood your point? Volker (Padova, Italy) http://opencyclemap.org/?zoom=13&lat=52.08908&lon=5.10929&layers=B00 > > Richard > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20120509/ac68a752/attachment-0001.html > > > > -- > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > End of talk Digest, Vol 93, Issue 6 > *** > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes
A Dutchman posted a map of the main cycle routes in Utrecht, and I asked why it looked so different to OSM/OCM http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/looking-down-on-cyclists/ Q: Why does the map above look different to what’s in OpenStreetMap? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.0924&lon=5.1317&zoom=12&layers=C A: The map here shows only those routes the city thinks are main routes. In reality there are far more routes and far more streets with cycling infrastructure (almost all major streets) as you can see in OpenStreetMap. The few red lines you see in OpenStreetMap are the national cycle routes but they have nothing to do with main routes in the city. "the national cycle routes ... have nothing to do with main routes in the city" 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. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
