A couple of blog posts on London Cycling Campaign that may be of interest finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1 <https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1>
signage-and-wayfinding <https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding> Low traffic neighbourhoods (https://lambethcyclists.org.uk/a-vision-for-lambeth/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
