I had a quick look at it this morning, and it seems a bit inaccurate in areas where I know OSM is good. (Ashfield, Marrickville, Burwood) Essentially routes marked on the map that are not cycle routes and actual cycle routes missing.
That said, there are probably places where it lists real cycle routes that OSM does not have, but possibly it is no more useful than council maps in this regard. Either way you need to survey, but proving that something isn't a cycle route tends to be more time consuming than proving something is. - Ben. On Aug 20, 2012 9:06 AM, "Ian Sergeant" <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > I'm sure we can do better. > > I was following apmon's remapping idea on the weekend, and for each > suburb pair in Sydney produced a travel distance for car routing > (using all motor vehicle accessible roads) and a "quiet cycle" routing > (using only highway=residential|cycleway, cycleway=*, lcn=*, rcn=*), > then sorted the resulting grid in terms of % difference. > > I'm yet to come to terms with exactly what the numbers mean (if > anything :-), but I think there are certainly some pointers to further > urban exploration in there. > > Ian. > > On 18 August 2012 11:17, Sam Russell <g.samuelruss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > RMS is now supplying an "infrastructure" map with all of the usual fun > and > > follies: http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/maps/cycleways.html > > > > All of the usual wonder and enjoyment of dealing with the RMS on bicycle > > related issues, now in one map! > > > > thanks, > > Sam. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
