Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Simon Still]

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 17:39, Andy Allan  wrote:
> 
> es.
> 
> * Not all bike paths are part of a larger signed cycling route.
> * Not all bike lanes are part of a larger signed cycling route.

But any cycle infrastructure that DOES exist - eg short sections of protected 
cycleway - will be picked up by routing engines and prioritised for routes



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Simon Still]

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 14:35, Robert Skedgell  wrote:
> 
> If 1057 is used on a carriageway
> rather than on a lane or track, it presumably indicates a route,
> although TSRGD 2016 does not elaborate upon this - is there an LTN which
> does?

Not by any means.  1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for traffic 
engineers.  

- Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it ‘to 
alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course drivers 
should be conscious that there could be cyclists on any road) 

- can’t work out how to get cyclists around a bus stop or parked car? Paint a 
1057 to indicate road position. 

OSM Wiki Cycle_routes 
 
"Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed route” 

I would argue that a ‘route’ marked with nothing but 1057 symbols is not useful 
in any way and doesn’t meet that definition 

I have similar issues with London’s Q network - sections of un-numbered 
quietway.  However, these should indicate a certain level of service - ie that 
they meet TfL s quality criteria in terms of traffic volumes etc - but also 
have a point.  Q sections are supposed to be feeders for the strategic cycle 
network of QW and CS routes - ie follow a Q and you should soon get to a main, 
destination signposted, route.  (though again, naming and numbering being 
revised and all routes that meet *latest* quality standards will be C numbered) 
 ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Simon Still]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Simon Still]

I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t had the 
time to come back to it.  

From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag ACCESSIBILITY  
- ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some users - not related to the 
legality but so that disabled cyclists (unable to dismount), those using 
trailers  or trikes or other non-standard cycles could specify a route that 
avoided sections where they could not ride.

Yes, I think bicycle dismount is correct tagging in this case not because of 
the legality but because of the steps.  If the bridge was had a ramp, or there 
was a subway, and it *could* be ridden across (even if there was a cyclist 
dismount sign) then I think tagging the dismount would be wrong. 



> On 14 Dec 2020, at 17:19, 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

___
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

[Simon Still]

> On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB 
>  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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Simon Still]

> On 10 Dec 2020, at 14:13, John Aldridge  wrote:
> 
> On 12/10/2020 12:41 PM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
>> As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for 
>> the tags.
> 
> A long standing grump of mine!

And mine.  I think the CycleMap render has a lot of issues with clarity.

(I’ve just gone in and removed a load of sections of road in Lambeth tagged as 
‘cycle route’ which have no route markings on the ground, do not form part of 
the current generation of C or Q routes, nor a numbered London Cycle Network 
Route (and were not on the LCN maps I have).  Also considering removing some 
other sections which may have correctly been marked as un-numbered LCN but 
which are no longer visible on the street in any way - though one does now run 
through a new Low Traffic Neighbourhood so *would* be a useful route if 
signed….) 


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Simon Still]

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 14:20, SK53  > wrote:
> Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces 
> (particularly after my experience 
> 
>  in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources 
> to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs, etc.) 
> when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from the 
> regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path blighting a 
> walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed to the HA and 
> get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal knowledge about the 
> PRoW.
> Jerry


If there is a RoW surely it should be marked - these are *rights of way* 
whether or not they have been kept in good order, blocked or are rarely used.  
NOT including it on a map surely just means it less likely that it will be used 
in future.  

I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that ARE 
NOT a legal right of way.  Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there are 
various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way and 
which the landowners say should not be ridden.  

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 14:10, Dave F via Talk-GB  > wrote:
> 
> IMO, this is bad mapping.
> Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph 
> taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.
> Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
> wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.
> Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
> mean it's been declared disused.

Indeed - I know of bridleway across fields and bogs in the Lake District where 
the ground is too wet to retain any signs of use distinct from cattle hoof 
prints. Signposts rot, signs fall down or get obscured by undergrowth. 

There are paths I walk and trails I ride that we go out and clear of nettles 
and bracken to keep them usable in summer. ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Simon Still]

Should be recorded as per the definitive map - lots like that across welsh 
hilltops etc.  I’ve used a gps to follow them in the fog before 

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479 
> ) which is detailed on the 
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have 
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't 
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete track, 
> however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also just now 
> added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence 
> and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen in other 
> cases on OSM.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> ___
> 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] London's COVID infrastructure and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

[Simon Still]

A couple of blog posts on London Cycling Campaign that may be of interest 

finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1 


signage-and-wayfinding 

Low traffic neighbourhoods 
(https://lambethcyclists.org.uk/a-vision-for-lambeth/low-traffic-neighbourhoods/
 
)
 present an interesting challenge for OSM based routing algorithms. 

The generally offer a significant upgrade to the cycling experience within 
their boundaries by significantly reducing motor traffic volumes. The biggest 
change tends to be on the roads of most use to cyclists (ie the ones that 
provide a useful, direct, alternative to the surrounding main roads, or a short 
cut).  Before an LTN these are likely to be busy with rat running traffic. An 
LTN removes that. 

However, I’m not sure how these can be best represented in OSM so that routing 
algorithms can take account of them. As I understand it, in the absence of a 
signed cycle route algorithms won’t see any change in the experience of cycling 
on the roads within the zone.

What do people suggest?  Could we mark LTN boundaries (in the way that the 
congestion charging zone is marked)? Should cycle campaigners be pushing for 
routes through LTNs to be designated and signed?


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Simon Still]

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 20:44, David Woolley  wrote:
> 
> On 14/08/2020 19:14, Simon Still wrote:
>> I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that changes anything - 
>> pedestrians have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag would 
>> add anything
> 
> Towpaths are privately paths (currently owned by the Canals and Rivers 
> Trust), so the rules for public paths don't apply.  At one time  you had to 
> apply for a free licence to cycle on them, the quid for quo for which was a 
> promise to do things like give pedestrians priority.

True, but there are also ‘pedestrian priority’ signs in parks and on other bits 
of shared path.  No one has ever been stopped by the police for ‘failing to 
give pedestrian priority’ - it would be reckless cycling or something similar. 

I’m just struggling to think what the tag would add - either for information or 
for a routing algorithm.  Also note the the proposals for the highway code 
would establish and road user hierarchy which would apply everywhere 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Simon Still]

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 16:47, Ken Kilfedder  wrote:
> 
> I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - at least 
> there are signs to that effect all over the place.  Well worth tagging them 
> to that effect if true.


I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that changes anything - pedestrians 
have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag would add anything 


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Simon Still]

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 09:31, Robert Skedgell  wrote:
> 
> On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote:
>> 
>> In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to
>> cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing
>> algorithms about the real experience of using them.
>> 
>> Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London
>> Cycling Campaign. 
> 
> Is there any more information on what LCC are doing in this area? There
> are probably members, myself included, who would be happy to help.
> 
> I know that borough groups audit changes to local infra, but having
> detailed photographs and notes are less useful to the wider cycling
> community than they could be if the information never finds its way onto
> OSM.

See the blog posts that I linked to.  
Plus 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database> 

(Our involvement has now ended but TfL should be continuing to use CID info to 
improve OSM accuracy) 

More discussion planned within LCC and community to press for better navigation 
and wayfinding 

>> 
>> Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but
>> some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked
>> routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths,
>> traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,
>> smooth tarmac good)  
> 
> Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have
> surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently
> might help.


Good to know surface is already widely used - I’d managed to miss that in the 
work I’d done. 
Smoothness is a new tag for me 

What has come up in discussions is that it would be good to map ‘restrictions’ 
more comprehensively and have routing algorithms that recognised them.  

There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have many - 
rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width 
restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.  All of 
those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo bike or 
disability adapted cycle. 

An objective would be to be able to plan a ‘disabled suitable route’ 

Simon Still;
Campaigns Team, LCC___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Simon Still]

> On 13 Aug 2020, at 11:41, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>> ... However, note that the "removed"
> sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the
> dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where the
> route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that some of
> the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and will quickly
> be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.
> 
> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
> that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?
> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

An interesting conundrum.  I’m thinking about mapping and navigation in London 
at the moment (see blogs at 
https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1
 

https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding 



So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on the 
ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was some discussion 
recently about this - 
https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html)

So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t it 
remain in OSM?  Conversely  - how do you deal with older bits of say London 
Cycle Network where signs have been removed or become unreadable. For example, 
I recently had an extended discussion about the status of the paths in 
Brockwell Park in Brixton (changeset here - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875 
 )  Maps showed routes and 
there may once have been signage but there is no longer any signage and 
supporting information says there is not a designated ‘route’ here. 

In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to cycle 
routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing algorithms about 
the real experience of using them.

Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London Cycling 
Campaign. 

Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but some way 
of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked routes would be a 
big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths, traffic speed all contribute 
(as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad, smooth tarmac good)  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Simon Still Gmail]

I’ve been adding them in My area. The tagging is established 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Jul 2020, at 12:00, Mark Goodge  wrote:
> 
> Do we map electric vehicle charging points? If not, should we?
> 
> None of the ones in my town are on OSM, at the moment. I could add them, but 
> it seems a bit pointless if they're not generally mapped.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ___
> 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] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Simon Still]

Try this - description and photo of each type I’ve identified.  Most of these 
photos are London infra, many COVID emergency meausres

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VL0MmHJoapd4JRgDhow0el2H06IJNsK-8KycxtWSaEw/edit?usp=sharing
 

 

You should be able to leave comments on that doc as well 



> On 16 Jun 2020, at 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB 
>  wrote:
> 
> Do you have a photo of such feature?
> 
> https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png
>  
> 
> link is dead
> 
> 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] COVID road changes

[Simon Still]

>Temporary and experimental traffic orders may include a date on which
>the expire or have to be reviewed, so that could perhaps be tagged?

>None of the orders which I have seen have explicitly mentioned Covid-19,
>but any suggestions about how to tag these would be useful.
A COVID-19 tag  - or  #StreetspaceLDN  StreetspaceLondon or some variation 
could also enable mapping that highlights the temporary infrastructure (I know 
there is interest in this within the cycling community) 

Best
Simon
(Didn’t receive original mail so apologies if this doesn’t thread)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Simon Still]

Full disclosure - I’m currently working for London Cycling Campaign on a 
project to bring data from the Transport For London Cycling Infrastructure 
Database to OSM.

As part of this the question arose as to how to tag cycle facilities that are 
give more protection and comfort than a painted lane on the road but not as 
much as a fully protected lane with, say, a 50cm concrete kerb separating 
cyclists from motor traffic. 

This was raised here - 

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/23 


There are may types of ‘hybrid’, ‘partial, or ‘soft’ separation.  The London 
COVID-19 ‘StreetScape’ programme is bring a lot of this type of infrastructure 
to London’s streets very quickly.  Looking at OSM Wiki and previous discussions 
it doesn’t appear that there is a definitive way to record these. And indeed, 
looking at the recent infrastructure and how it has been entered to OSM by 
users it is not happening consistently as a result. 

My view on this is that the greatest distinction is between a painted lane and 
a track (that has some form of protection).  The difference between the 
different types of track is less than between no protection at all and 
’something’.  

Given the multitude of different ways of giving some protection to cyclists I 
wonder whether it is better to treat them all as variants of track (since they 
all offer much greater protection than a lane but vary in comfort level - in my 
view in this order of comfort).

cycleway:track=kerb
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb_wand
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb

cycleway:track=concrete_barrier
cycleway:track=plastic_barrier

cycleway:track=stepped
cycleway:track=wandorca
cycleway:track=wand
cycleway:track=orca



There may be more I've forgotten.

This would mean that routing engines would see either lane or track at the 
basic level, but the routing engine designer could then add further refinement 
using info about the type of track (in combination  perhaps with the size/speed 
of the road it was alongside) if that info was available.   The detail of the 
precise type of infra is relevant (rather than just simply tagging these with a 
generic tag such as ‘part protected’ or ‘hybrid’ since it may be that some 
types of infra prove more successful or have safety issues and there is a 
desire to identify locations where they are present (eg the concrete or water 
filed barriers prevent informal crossing of the road by pedestrians) 

Since this infra is being rolled out quickly and in volume (both in London and 
internationally - though London, due to the fragmented local authorities seems 
to be doing it in far more varied ways than other places) there is a benefit to 
establishing this now 

 ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb