Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:11:20PM +, Richard Fairhurst wrote: - Local cycle networks with objective, on-the-ground evidence (usually signposts) are tagged as lcn=yes (and lcn_ref=..., lcn_name=..., or the relations equivalent) as at present. This sounds reasonable. Round here (Oxford), there are three types of on-the-ground signs for the local cycle network: Numbered signs that appear to meet the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) - I think these have only been used where the local network follows a route also on the national network, so they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892 Numbered Oxford Cycle Network signs, EG: http://cycle.st/p34893 Unnumbered TSRGD 2002 signs, with just the route's destination on them, EG: http://cycle.st/p34890 Obviously, the first two are enough to justify lcn_ref= and in general the last gets at least lcn=yes. However, knowing the numbering scheme of the network it's possible to infer the lcn_ref even when it's not on the sign: Route 1 (which numbered signposts) follows NCN 51 roughly North-South to the city centre, then there are 8 more spokes, numbered clockwise, and finally 10 is the ring-road cyclepath. This used to be displayed as a poster on information boards around the city, and was the source of of the numbering when I've used lcn_ref= for unnumbered routes in the past. I don't think the poster is on display any more, but that doesn't mean it's bad data! - Cycle networks that are not significantly verifiable on the ground, but are proposed for official adoption and are under active discussion with the transport authority, are tagged as lcn=proposed. I'm much more nervous about this - OSM is not the place for planning data. I think =proposed should only be used in the case SomeoneElse mentions. That is, the exact route has been finalised but the signs on-the-ground have not yet been installed. cheers Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
In your first example, they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892 Seems to be located on Northmoor Road according to the accompanying map, yet the route seems to be drawn on Charlbury Road. Is the photo just wrongly located in cycle streets, or has the route changed and the sign is just left behind? Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
The geolocation in cyclestreets is wrong. The route has been on Charlbury Road since the early nineties, and the signs since the late nineties. There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put up in various places. Richard On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: In your first example, they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892 Seems to be located on Northmoor Road according to the accompanying map, yet the route seems to be drawn on Charlbury Road. Is the photo just wrongly located in cycle streets, or has the route changed and the sign is just left behind? Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:05:52PM +, Ed Loach wrote: In your first example, they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892 Seems to be located on Northmoor Road according to the accompanying map, yet the route seems to be drawn on Charlbury Road. The geolocation was wrong - my phone's GPS can't have warmed up! I've manually corrected in in Cyclestreets. s ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Richard Mann wrote: There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put up in various places. Not sure which stickers you're referring to, but IIRC Sustrans 'Ranger' stickers are approved for use by almost all highway authorities in England, including Oxfordshire. (The two I'm unsure about are Leicestershire and North Yorkshire but please don't quote me on that!) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LCN-Local-Cycle-Network-tp7039537p7047249.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
They're not approved in the signs regs, which I think has jurisdiction. IANAL etc. On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Richard Mann wrote: There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put up in various places. Not sure which stickers you're referring to, but IIRC Sustrans 'Ranger' stickers are approved for use by almost all highway authorities in England, including Oxfordshire. (The two I'm unsure about are Leicestershire and North Yorkshire but please don't quote me on that!) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LCN-Local-Cycle-Network-tp7039537p7047249.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
But which signs are we talking about here? I'd not expect Sustrans Ranger signs to figure in the DfT Traffic signs manual. Cheers Andy From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 November 2011 15:59 To: Richard Fairhurst Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network They're not approved in the signs regs, which I think has jurisdiction. IANAL etc. On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Richard Mann wrote: There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put up in various places. Not sure which stickers you're referring to, but IIRC Sustrans 'Ranger' stickers are approved for use by almost all highway authorities in England, including Oxfordshire. (The two I'm unsure about are Leicestershire and North Yorkshire but please don't quote me on that!) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LCN-Local-Cycle-Network-tp7039537p7047249.ht ml Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Works for me Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Sent: 28 November 2011 17:11 To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) Subject: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network Hello all, We seem to be ending up with wildly conflicting use of 'lcn=yes', 'lcn_ref=*', and similar tags across Britain. In London, these tags are used as you would expect - to map the signposted London Cycle Network. It's pretty much in keeping with ncn= and rcn= tagging. In Worcester, there's an official city network with some numbered routes, others with symbols (e.g. purple diamond). These are not fully mapped yet, but where they are, they're tagged with lcn tags. In Cambridge, the official city network isn't numbered, but it is coherently and clearly signed. These routes are also tagged using lcn tags as you'd expect. Nottingham and Wisbech seem to be the same. So far so good. But there also appear to be lots of rather more confusing uses of the tag. In some places, we have large-scale leisure routes tagged as lcn. The Chiltern Cycleway and Round Berkshire Cycleway are two examples that spring to mind. In others, we have networks of local leisure routes tagged as lcn (e.g. Warwickshire - contrast with Wales where rcn= is used for the Wales Cycle Breaks routes). In yet others, we have small isolated rural routes or links tagged as lcn. On occasion people tag a selection of roads or paths as LCN just to get them to render as bike-friendly on OCM, when in fact there's nothing particularly networky or even route-y about them. There are also a couple of towns where local cyclists have devised their own networks and tagged them as 'lcn', even though there's little or no on-the- ground evidence. In some cases the cyclists are in active discussions with the transport authority to get this network adopted, but in others it may be more wistful. Sites like CycleStreets, BikeHike, and OpenCycleMap, apps like CycleStreets and Bike Hub, and Garmin maps mean that OSM is probably now the most- used cycle map of Britain. We have a responsibility to make it accurate, consistent, and readily understood. I would like to propose that: - Local cycle networks with objective, on-the-ground evidence (usually signposts) are tagged as lcn=yes (and lcn_ref=..., lcn_name=..., or the relations equivalent) as at present. - Cycle networks that are not significantly verifiable on the ground, but are proposed for official adoption and are under active discussion with the transport authority, are tagged as lcn=proposed. - Large-scale (non-NCN) leisure routes and county-wide networks are moved to rcn=, to accord with the similar routes already tagged as such (e.g. National Byway and light-blue-number routes). - Non-network routes are not tagged as lcn=, but may of course be tagged as route=bicycle (perhaps as a relation). Thoughts? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Thinking about it, I reckon official/operator/signposted tags on the relation are a better approach, since the matter is rarely quite as yes/no as defining a separate network. Might have to break some relations into sections, to reflect the officialness and signpostedness of different sections, but that's no great hardship. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: I guess the big-society-defined ones can be ccn and Andy can include them or not as he chooses. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
This sounds a bit like yes it is/oh no it isn't tags. If it's not an actual cycle route, then it shouldn't be otherwise identically tagged but just with additional official=no or operator=Some Wishful Thinkers. I think your earlier suggestion of tagging them separately to lcn/ncn/rcn would be best. On 29 November 2011 09:35, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking about it, I reckon official/operator/signposted tags on the relation are a better approach, since the matter is rarely quite as yes/no as defining a separate network. Might have to break some relations into sections, to reflect the officialness and signpostedness of different sections, but that's no great hardship. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: I guess the big-society-defined ones can be ccn and Andy can include them or not as he chooses. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
On 29 November 2011 09:17, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts. In what way? They are both signed cycle routes covering a reasonably local extent. Other factors - like the superhighways being on major roads often with cycle lanes, and the lcn typically being on quieter residential streets without lanes - are already covered by the tags on the ways. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
On 28/11/2011 18:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (for example, I'm group co-ordinator for North West Oxfordshire and have tagged those routes in our area which are under discussion with local councils and are likely to open in the next few years) What tags did you use? Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Hello all, We seem to be ending up with wildly conflicting use of 'lcn=yes', 'lcn_ref=*', and similar tags across Britain. In London, these tags are used as you would expect - to map the signposted London Cycle Network. It's pretty much in keeping with ncn= and rcn= tagging. In Worcester, there's an official city network with some numbered routes, others with symbols (e.g. purple diamond). These are not fully mapped yet, but where they are, they're tagged with lcn tags. In Cambridge, the official city network isn't numbered, but it is coherently and clearly signed. These routes are also tagged using lcn tags as you'd expect. Nottingham and Wisbech seem to be the same. So far so good. But there also appear to be lots of rather more confusing uses of the tag. In some places, we have large-scale leisure routes tagged as lcn. The Chiltern Cycleway and Round Berkshire Cycleway are two examples that spring to mind. In others, we have networks of local leisure routes tagged as lcn (e.g. Warwickshire - contrast with Wales where rcn= is used for the Wales Cycle Breaks routes). In yet others, we have small isolated rural routes or links tagged as lcn. On occasion people tag a selection of roads or paths as LCN just to get them to render as bike-friendly on OCM, when in fact there's nothing particularly networky or even route-y about them. There are also a couple of towns where local cyclists have devised their own networks and tagged them as 'lcn', even though there's little or no on-the-ground evidence. In some cases the cyclists are in active discussions with the transport authority to get this network adopted, but in others it may be more wistful. Sites like CycleStreets, BikeHike, and OpenCycleMap, apps like CycleStreets and Bike Hub, and Garmin maps mean that OSM is probably now the most-used cycle map of Britain. We have a responsibility to make it accurate, consistent, and readily understood. I would like to propose that: - Local cycle networks with objective, on-the-ground evidence (usually signposts) are tagged as lcn=yes (and lcn_ref=..., lcn_name=..., or the relations equivalent) as at present. - Cycle networks that are not significantly verifiable on the ground, but are proposed for official adoption and are under active discussion with the transport authority, are tagged as lcn=proposed. - Large-scale (non-NCN) leisure routes and county-wide networks are moved to rcn=, to accord with the similar routes already tagged as such (e.g. National Byway and light-blue-number routes). - Non-network routes are not tagged as lcn=, but may of course be tagged as route=bicycle (perhaps as a relation). Thoughts? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
I've done a bulk of the Nottingham one (especially in the South and East) and have generally followed the following rules (which others in the area appear to have followed too) 1. If it's got NCN numbers it's NCN - From the last sign I continue it until the next junction (e.g. NCN 15 is only signed between Trent Bridge and Wilford Suspension Bridge at the Trent Bridge end - I stop it at Wilford Suspension bridge (Welbeck Road) - http://osm.org/go/eu8aQ7KA?layers=C ). 2. If it's a leisure route crossing county boundaries it's RCN (Only one so far - The Erewash Valley Trail which happens to be NCN in parts) 3. If it's a leisure route within Nottinghamshire it's LCN (Only one of these at the moment - The Big Track) - never too sure if this should be LCN or RCN though! 4. If it's got signed destinations it's LCN - however none of these have names except one Follow (green diamond) To New Basford Avoiding Tram Tracks and Follow (green diamond) To City Avoiding Tram Tracks - Trying to give these names (of the destination) would be a pain and leave a right mess on the rendering (e.g. a stretch of road in one way relations for each of :- City Centre, Meadows, Lady Bay, Vale of Belvoir, Holme Pierpont, Cotgrave, Basingfield (via A52 Crossing), Gamston, and NCN 15!...), but should we actually be trying to record these? 5. Anything else is just bicycle=yes, any paths with cycle signs are highway=cycleway; foot=yes On 28 November 2011 17:23, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I would like to propose that: - Local cycle networks with objective, on-the-ground evidence (usually signposts) are tagged as lcn=yes (and lcn_ref=..., lcn_name=..., or the relations equivalent) as at present. - Cycle networks that are not significantly verifiable on the ground, but are proposed for official adoption and are under active discussion with the transport authority, are tagged as lcn=proposed. - Large-scale (non-NCN) leisure routes and county-wide networks are moved to rcn=, to accord with the similar routes already tagged as such (e.g. National Byway and light-blue-number routes). - Non-network routes are not tagged as lcn=, but may of course be tagged as route=bicycle (perhaps as a relation). Thoughts? Very sensible, I'm all for this... no tagging for the render(s) in this proposal either. regards, Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
On 28/11/2011 18:29, SomeoneElse wrote: The problem with proposed routes is that they don't exist yet and so the usual on the ground check is difficult. Then don't map them. Seriously, if these networks aren't at the implementation stage, there's little point in adding them to OSM. Even worse, if a route relies on some improvement work (e.g. clearing of a railway trackbed) that hasn't been done, having the route there could even be dangerous. J. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Someoneelse wrote: Thanks Andy. Makes sense to me. Do you know if there is anywhere a list of proposed Sustrans routes (not based on OS mapping hopefully) that could be used for fact-checking some of the more wishful proposed cycle ways in OSM? Andy R and I have a list of three-digit NCN routes from Sustrans, both open and proposed, and their approximate routes. There are also numerous Sustrans Rangers who are OSMers and are likely to have knowledge of proposed routes in their area (for example, I'm group co-ordinator for North West Oxfordshire and have tagged those routes in our area which are under discussion with local councils and are likely to open in the next few years). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LCN-Local-Cycle-Network-tp7039537p7039861.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Jonathan Bennett wrote: Then don't map them. Seriously, if these networks aren't at the implementation stage, there's little point in adding them to OSM. Even worse, if a route relies on some improvement work (e.g. clearing of a railway trackbed) that hasn't been done, having the route there could even be dangerous. There's a similar issue where the NCN signage hasn't gone up yet, but routes appear on Sustrans' OS-derived maps and on recent OS maps. Where these have been tagged locally I've given previous mappers the benefit of the doubt and assumed that an appropriate source for such cycle routes was available (i.e. someone who knows says that it runs from X to Y along Z, without resorting to pointing at an OS map in the process). Presumably at the very least a source for the tag is needed? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
I guess the big-society-defined ones can be ccn and Andy can include them or not as he chooses. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
