Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)
Outside London, these days I tend to use direction signs or named route signs (eg named after planets/satellites/dwarf planets in Woking, or colours in Bracknell, or the "Cycling Discoveries" signs in north Hampshire) as an indication of an LCN/RCN. In the past, I had looser criteria, and I sometimes go back and remove LCNs that I added (eg there are some I added in Wokingham in the expectation that signs would appear, but they never did). On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, 13:28 Simon Still, wrote: > See discussion on > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95752985#map=18/51.46201/-0.12146=C > > There appear to be a large number of sections of road in some areas of > London tagged as ‘cycle route’ that are no more than the occasional 1057 > cycle symbol painted on the road. > > They are not signed, and do not have any route numbering. > > Based on the discussion it appears > - most were added by user MacLondon > - they were the ‘lowest level’ of route designation by some councils at > some time in the past. Pick some ‘useful routes’ on ‘quiet roads’ and just > paint some symbols on them for people to follow > > Some of these appear on the last 2015 TfL cycle maps in yellow (routes > were blue) keyed as ‘other roads recommended by cyclists’ > > My opinion is > - these are not followable on the ground > - they do not meet TfL or borough quality criteria (and thus do not appear > on any more recent maps) eg - they are not shown in any way on Lambeth > councils > 2017 cycle map > https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map > - they decrease legibility of the map because they create a mass of dense > blue lines from which it’s hard to pick out genuinely useful routes. > - they probably have a negative impact on routing engines as they are > likely treated equally to actual signposted routes. > - in many cases where they do show the most direct route through > backstreets that is likely to be the busiest with rat running traffic as > it’s where google and Waze will send drivers. > > Thoughts? > > > ___ > 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] Removing all stiles from bridleways
I have seen at least one bridleway with a stile (not a horse stile). Bridleways that were recently upgraded from public footpaths may still have old barriers. Just because there is a right of way, it doesn't mean that it's fully accessible (e.g a BOAT near Alton that has steps at one end). Jon On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 20:31 Neil Matthews, wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways > -- pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're > a potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if > by hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504 > > Cheers, > Neil > > > ___ > 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] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps
Yes - step_count is also very useful Jon On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 17:21, Michael Collinson wrote: > FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is made > of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. My > objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for both > sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute: > > bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is safe and > practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does happen. Sometimes > on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to one side also exists. > > where there is a ramp: > ramp=yes > bicycle=dismount (here I am tagging on practicality rather than > legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK) > ramp:stroller=yes where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport > demographic) > > on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route would be > much longer: > bicycle=carry (informal/experimental) > > I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router more > quantitative input on whether to route or avoid. > > And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard tagging > at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a steep flight > of steps around a corner! > > Mike > > On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote: > > resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address. > > However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not > as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes, > similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see > "discouraged" at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says > bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'. > > Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for > most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a > short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in > default (I think it does for CycleStreets). > > I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to > bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though. > > Jon > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Jon Pennycook > wrote: > >> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, >> not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs >> (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) >> - see "discouraged" at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says >> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'. >> >> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for >> most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a >> short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in >> default (I think it does for CycleStreets). >> >> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to >> bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though. >> >> Jon >> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 11:04, Simon Still wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB < >>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: >>>> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will >>>> allow >>>> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road. >>>> >>>> Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps. Otherwise >>>> it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be >>>> necessary because of the steps. >>>> >>> >>> The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists >>> dismount". That seems pretty clear to me. >>> >>> >>> >>> White on Blue ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are only advisory. It may be >>> foolish to cycle down (or up) the steps but it’s not illegal. >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Talk-GB mailing list >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>> >> > ___ > Talk-GB mailing > listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > ___ > 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] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps
resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address. However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'. Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in default (I think it does for CycleStreets). I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though. Jon On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Jon Pennycook wrote: > However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not > as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes, > similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see > "discouraged" at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says > bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'. > > Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount for > most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and walking on a > short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may override the built-in > default (I think it does for CycleStreets). > > I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in preference to > bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful tag though. > > Jon > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 11:04, Simon Still wrote: > >> >> >> On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB < >> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, >> wrote: >> >>> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: >>> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will >>> allow >>> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road. >>> >>> Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps. Otherwise >>> it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be >>> necessary because of the steps. >>> >> >> The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists >> dismount". That seems pretty clear to me. >> >> >> >> White on Blue ‘cyclists dismount’ signs are only advisory. It may be >> foolish to cycle down (or up) the steps but it’s not illegal. >> >> >> ___ >> 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
[Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
Returning to this subject, but not necessarily at roundabouts - turn restrictions are still being added even where they don't exist (apparently) - e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93759133 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93750062 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] NCN 231 and NCN 235 Isle of Wight
Hello. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821036 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821037 (claiming to be National Cycle Network Route 231 and 235) have been listed on OpenStreetMap for some time. They appear to mostly duplicate Regional Cycle Network route 67 ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2742) aka "Round The Island" or "Taste the Wight". 67 is shown on the SusTrans OS Map, but 231 and 235 are not. The only NCN signs I have ever seen on the Isle of Wight are for 22 and 23. I can't find any original sources thst mention either 232 or 235 (they are mentioned in passing in the Wikipedia article on the NCN). I suspect someone worked out a proposed route that was never approved, but it got into OSM anyway. What should I/we do? E.g. * Mark 231 and 235 as "Proposed"? * Delete both relations? How can this be done easily? Jon ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings
Traveline, a public transport website, use OSM for both presenting a map and for routing, eg http://www.travelinesw.com/ They get confused by bus-only roads - access=no/motor_vehicle=no combined with bus=yes/designated on a road leads to very strange routing (or did the last time I tried to plan a route in Reading)! Some delivery companies use OSM - there are several groups of professional mappers who edit the map on their behalf. As for direct use by the general public - I know people who use OpenCycleMap.org, but most people I know aren't aware of OSM. Jon Message: 1 Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:46:08 +0100 From: Robert Skedgell To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings Message-ID: <3bf3ed9c-b053-38f9-700c-bbe64e14e...@hubris.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 23/07/2020 10:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > > > > Jul 23, 2020, 11:49 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk: > > On 23/07/2020 10:12, Nick wrote: > > Do we actually know what the general public use OSM for? > > > My impression is that the target for a lot of the material in OSM is > professional users of maps, rather than the general public. > > I would say that most of use by general public is indirect - from location > maps in a bus, through maps on mapy.cz/Osmand/FB/Snapchat/Uber/Maps.me > to indirectly benefiting from use of OSM data in various > plans/analysis/scientific research. I though Uber used Google, which would explain a couple of comical misdirections to somewhere near-ish to my destination, which I could replicate later on in Google. > > I would say that direct use by general public is going to be fairly > rare, though still > happening, like with nearly all resources. > There's also a lot of indirect use by the public in route planning sites and apps, particularly for cyclists, e.g. Komoot, CycleStreets and cycle.travel It's also fairly heavily used by sport and activity tracking apps like Strava and Training Peaks (both via Mapbox), VeloViewer, etc. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification
Clearly, the review of the National Cycle Network isn't too stringent. NCN223 between Woking and Chertsey is still listed on https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn, despite the shared use path being about 2-3 feet wide in many places with blind road crossings, especially along Guildford Road/Chertsey Road south of Ottershaw. The NCN246 follows a 60mph B road before joining a 30mph A road at Hurstbourne Tarrant, and I am told is horrible for cycle commuting (it's not much fun for leisure cycling when it's busy). Parts of the NCN2 in Purbeck are just sand. The sections removed must be truly awful if all the above are retained. Or is SusTrans hoping for more money to improve charismatic parts of the network? Jon > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 14:47:31 +0100 > From: Richard Fairhurst > To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" > Subject: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification > Message-ID: <0d1959aa-4a3c-4571-91e1-2bf96d9dcfd9@Spark> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all, > > As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review > and improve the National Cycle Network. > > As part of this, sections of routes which Sustrans thinks have no > realistic prospect of being brought up to a minimum standard in the near > future are being either removed from the network entirely, or > "reclassified" - which in practice means that they might still be > signposted as cycle routes, but not with an NCN number, and probably > maintained/promoted by local authorities rather than by Sustrans. > Generally, these are minor roads where the level of traffic is too high. > > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
