On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Mike Boos <mike.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed some users have begun tagging some roads in a number of Canadian
> cities with lcn=yes tags, which are intended for marking local cycling
> routes. My understanding of the lcn tag was that it was intended for marking
> designated routes, not just any old way that is potentially bikeable or
> personal preferences cycling routes.
Thanks for the heads-up about your intentions. Yes, I agree with your
characterization that lcn=yes (either directly on a way or on a route relation
with ways collected together as elements) is for "designated" routes. And that
is one way to do it: another is if you know the "level" of either federal,
provincial or local) where you might tag network=ncn, rcn or lcn in a bicycle
route relation. These routes might be designated by a government (federal,
provincial or local) or a "cycling group" (could be a non-profit or for-profit
member organization). And/or they might be a proposal before a government body
(for example, if a set of bicycle infrastructure so tagged has a numbering
protocol which organizes that set), in which case you'd add state=proposed,
then OpenCycleMap would render the route lines as dashed instead of solid. But
yes: OSM has reached a consensus that such routes designated in our map data
are not "simply personal preferences" by a single person who wishes to organize
bicycle routes, whether on infrastructure tagged with bicycle-ish tags like
highway=cycleway or cycleway=lane, or not. They are either signed on the
ground or perhaps published as a paper or online map by a government or bike
non-profit who has organized infrastructure together as routes and publishes
> For many roads, the lcn tag seems redundant, since these ways are already
> tagged with cycleway=lane or something similar, and there is no accompanying
> lcn_ref tag to provide information on individual route names or numbers (if
> they exist). Other roads have been tagged, but have no infrastructure or
> signage, which suggests someone is simply marking their personal routes.
There really are two tagging schemes going on here, for different purposes:
one is tagging infrastructure (nothing to do with lcn or lcn_ref), like
highway=cycleway or cycleway=lane or bicycle=yes (there are others). The other
is specifically for routes, and these include lcn (or much less commonly
lcn_ref) and/or a relation with tags type=route, route=bicycle and usually a
network=*cn (lcn, rcn, ncn, icn). A newer (though established in both Canada
and the USA) tag of "cycle_network" is also being applied, this helps to
disambiguate specific bicycle networks which share the same network "level."
The lcn tag isn't redundant: a way can be tagged as bicycle infrastructure
(and that is one thing) independent of being part of a bicycle route. The lcn
tag is used when (USUALLY, perhaps ALWAYS or NEARLY ALWAYS) bicycle
infrastructure IS part of a (local) route. Bicycle infrastructure can be so
tagged while NOT being part of a route, but the converse usually isn't true.
> I'd like to think I have some sort of expertise in what constitutes an
> official local cycling route in my area, having served as a member and later
> chair of the Kitchener Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee for several
> years. There are some signed routes that myself and others in the area have
> properly marked with relations. But is my understanding of what the lcn tag
> is for wrong? I'd like to know before I start cleaning things up.
I would strongly agree with you that signed-on-the-ground routes (almost always
part of a "network") should be mapped in OSM and that "casual" or "personal"
routes should not be mapped in OSM. Again, an exception can be a formal
proposal for a network or numbering protocol which has been introduced before a
government body and is either in the process of being approved or implemented.
For example, routes in the USBRS, USA's national bicycle routing network / ncn
have been emerging over the last several years and will take many more years to
complete as the network gets "built out".
In the interests of gaining a solid understanding of this (and to "keep your
sanity!" while learning), I recommend that you FIRST "get infrastructure
tagging correct" on the ways which are actually bicycle infrastructure:
highway=cycleway, cycleway=lane, and so on. SECOND, assemble these bicycle
infrastructure elements into route relations (type=route, route=bicycle,
network=lcn/rcn/ncn/icn). I speak from deep experience: sticking to that
ordering, while not required, really helps. Take your time (over weeks) and
watch Cycle Map layer render infrastructure tags a certain way and route
relations in a certain way. I'm not saying "tag for the renderer," I am saying
"tag correctly (by what our wiki says) and you'll get great results rendered."
Please take a look at these wiki pages of ours:
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Cycle_routes (the definitive guide to routing, but
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks (how the USA assigns
routes to the various levels of national, regional, local)
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System (the specific
example of how far along the USA is in implementing its national cycleway
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:cycle_network (has a section both for Canada and
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada#Trans_Canada_Trail (brief, but
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/FR:Route_verte (in French, but how one province
implements a regional cycleway network's routes in OSM)
In the latter, especially note the table near the end after "Voici les
attributs recommendés les segments associés à chacun des types:" It shows how
all member elements of the routes have specific infrastructure tags for
bicycles. That's right!
If Canada would like to create a
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada/Bicycle_Networks wiki, I'd be delighted to
Asking questions is great, I hope I have provided you with some answers.
Talk-ca mailing list