Martin, The area I was looking in was Birmingham. Can't vouch for anywhere outside the small area of Sutton Coldfield I was looking at.
Cheers Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin - CycleStreets [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 11 October 2012 16:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes (quality) > > > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Dave F. wrote: > > > This is why I've largely ignored the DfT data. It just isn't accurate > > enough to blindly copy into OSM ad hoc. I enter cycle lane data such > > as this only when I have been to an area & actually seen it, which > > renders most of the DfT info worthless. > > The intention certainly is that people should be merging it only with local > knowledge. > > However, I've certainly found it pretty accurate (well above 90%) in the areas > I know and have merged in. Cambridge for instance has a lot of > infrastructure, and the data here is good, despite being one of the earliest to > be surveyed 3-4 years ago. > > Which area(s) have you found to be inaccurate, out of interest? > > > > I've even seen data for NCN 4 that's illegal where it suggests a right > > hand turn but is explicitly denied by signs. > > There aren't any turn restrictions in the data as far as I'm aware. > > > Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists > Developer, CycleStreets ** http://www.cyclestreets.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5823 - Release Date: 10/10/12 _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
