[talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
Hi. I think we should specify a little more what constitutes a cycle route on the tagging guidelines. Some background: For the cycle map layer you can tag any way as a local cycle route (lcn=*), a regional cycle route (rcn=*) or a national cycle route (ncn=*). The tag can be applied to the way, or a relation can be defined. On the cycle map these ways are highlighted, and some routing engines use this information to route cyclists differently to other vehicles. (e.g. ridethecity.com) In some sense, any street or path you can ride a bike on is a potential cycle route, but I don't think this makes it a cycle route in the OSM sense. I would reason that the way (streets especially) need some kind of marking (signs, or road markings such as painted bike symbols) to indicate that the arm of government who maintains that street has designated the street to be a cycle route, before we mark it as a cycle route in OSM. Does that seem reasonable? Where it gets more complicated is when we start to think what kind of marking we should expect to see on the ground before we say that this is a cycle route in the OSM sense. The same applies when deciding that some street is not really a cycle route. Note that I am not talking about a legal definition on whether you can ride a bike there (bicycle=yes or bicycle=no), and I am not talking about how we tag paths/footpaths/cycleways. That is a different discussion. How about the following cases: (bicycle=yes is true for all of these) Some that are not cycle routes: * Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route. * As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would say this is not a cycle route. * As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a cycle route in the OSM sense. * As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly common. I would say this is not a cycle route. Tricky ones: * A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its cycle route. This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. * A section of street that does not have any markings connects other streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a cycle route. This also is tricky. * A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it is. * A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is. Easier ones: * In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle route. * A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted on the road. Signs every 500m saying Cycle Route. Signs at every intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes this is a cycle route. I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed to I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down. - Ben Kelley. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
On 02/12/12 09:10, Ben Kelley wrote: Where it gets more complicated is when we start to think what kind of marking we should expect to see on the ground before we say that this is a cycle route in the OSM sense. The same applies when deciding that some street is not really a cycle route. I take a simplistic approach to this. A road is a bicycle route if and only if it has a bicycle lane (lanes if a two-way road). Australian Road Rules: Rule 153: A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane: (a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane; and (b) ending at the nearest of the following: (i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane; (ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T–intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines); (iii) if the road ends at a dead end — the end of the road. Rule 247: The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?
I think what you say makes sense Ben, its pretty much the default OSM test, can you see it on the ground ? What's not so clear to me is what you hope to achieve. Do you want to attach the (eg) lcn= to individual (qualifying) roads or bundle them together into routes ? The latter makes more sense IMHO and would be best done as a relation. Be good to see the outcome of your deliberations appear on the Australian tagging guidelines page. David . Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I think we should specify a little more what constitutes a cycle route on the tagging guidelines. Some background: For the cycle map layer you can tag any way as a local cycle route (lcn=*), a regional cycle route (rcn=*) or a national cycle route (ncn=*). The tag can be applied to the way, or a relation can be defined. On the cycle map these ways are highlighted, and some routing engines use this information to route cyclists differently to other vehicles. (e.g. ridethecity.com) In some sense, any street or path you can ride a bike on is a potential cycle route, but I don't think this makes it a cycle route in the OSM sense. I would reason that the way (streets especially) need some kind of marking (signs, or road markings such as painted bike symbols) to indicate that the arm of government who maintains that street has designated the street to be a cycle route, before we mark it as a cycle route in OSM. Does that seem reasonable? Where it gets more complicated is when we start to think what kind of marking we should expect to see on the ground before we say that this is a cycle route in the OSM sense. The same applies when deciding that some street is not really a cycle route. Note that I am not talking about a legal definition on whether you can ride a bike there (bicycle=yes or bicycle=no), and I am not talking about how we tag paths/footpaths/cycleways. That is a different discussion. How about the following cases: (bicycle=yes is true for all of these) Some that are not cycle routes: * Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route. * As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would say this is not a cycle route. * As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a cycle route in the OSM sense. * As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly common. I would say this is not a cycle route. Tricky ones: * A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its cycle route. This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. * A section of street that does not have any markings connects other streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a cycle route. This also is tricky. * A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it is. * A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is. Easier ones: * In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle route. * A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted on the road. Signs every 500m saying Cycle Route. Signs at every intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes this is a cycle route. I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed to I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down. - Ben Kelley. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
