On 15/12/2020 15:06, Simon Still wrote: > > >> On 15 Dec 2020, at 14:35, Robert Skedgell <r...@hubris.org.uk >> <mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>> wrote: >> >> If 1057 is used on a carriageway >> rather than on a lane or track, it presumably indicates a route, >> although TSRGD 2016 does not elaborate upon this - is there an LTN which >> does? > > Not by any means. 1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for > traffic engineers. > > - Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it > ‘to alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course > drivers should be conscious that there could be cyclists on any road) > > - can’t work out how to get cyclists around a bus stop or parked car? > Paint a 1057 to indicate road position. > > OSM Wiki Cycle_routes <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes>
The wording in TSRGD 2016, however is "Cycle lane, track or route". If it is on the carriageway and is not part of a lane, the assumption would be that it indicates a route. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/made#tgp2-tbl2-tbd1-tr28-tc2 Luckily there is further guidance on the use of 1057, which is a bit more detailed than TSRGD's description. LTN 1/20 10.5.4 includes "Providing road markings to highlight the presence of cyclists to other road users, such as cycle symbols to TSRGD diagram 1057, lines to TSRGD diagram 1010 and advisory cycle lanes, as well as coloured surfacing". 10.7.35 allows this on the approach to a mini-roundabout: "Cycle symbols to TSRGD diagram 1057 may be placed in the primary position to guide cyclists and to alert motorist to their presence." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906344/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf Chapter 6 of London Cycling Design Standards 6.2.5 includes this: "Diagram 1057 cycle symbol markings should be selected according to the width available: usually medium-sized, but small for cycle tracks and large for ASL boxes. They are used, orientated in the direction of travel for cyclists, in three distinct and well recognised ways: • For conspicuity: alerting other road users to expect the presence of cyclists • For positioning: suggesting a recommended line of travel for cyclists • For wayfinding: indicating a route, particularly at a decision point Any use of this marking should either meet all three functions, or positioning and conspicuity without an explicit wayfinding function. The cycle symbol should never be used for wayfinding where it compromises the positioning function, particularly at junctions and past parking and loading bays." http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter6-signsandmarkings.pdf You are correct in stating that 1057 outside a lane on a carriageway does not necessarily indicate a route as I had previously thought. > "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise > signed route” However, if a cycle route in London has 1057 at 150-200m intervals (on local streets), or 20-30m intervals on a main road route (LCDS fig. 6.2), it's an "otherwise signed" route. It's not a particularly well signed route and not using 1057.1 for the route number is unhelpful, but as some CS and Q route numbers appear to be changing to C route numbers they could be out of date anyway (unless Will Norman changes his mind, or Shaun Bailey has them all ripped up). > I would argue that a ‘route’ marked with nothing but 1057 symbols is not > useful in any way and doesn’t meet that definition > > I have similar issues with London’s Q network - sections of > un-numbered quietway. However, these should indicate a certain level of > service - ie that they meet TfL s quality criteria in terms of traffic > volumes etc - but also have a point. Q sections are supposed to be > feeders for the strategic cycle network of QW and CS routes - ie follow > a Q and you should soon get to a main, destination signposted, route. > (though again, naming and numbering being revised and all routes that > meet *latest* quality standards will be C numbered) _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
