<div class="gmail_quote">On 2 December 2012 09:10, Ben Kelley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ben.kelley@gmail.com" target="_blank">ben.kelley@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
* Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route.<br>
* As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would say this is not a cycle route.<br>* As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a cycle route in the OSM sense.<br>
* As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly common. I would say this is not a cycle route.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Agreed.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
* A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its "cycle route". This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Take the Ryde example here. They provide a list of street names that provide a cycle route. Mostly no on-the-ground markings, but the streets do constitute a quiet cycle route. I'd mark it.<br>
<br>If the source is not compatible with our licence then we don't copy it - this is independent of cycle route or otherwise.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
* A section of street that does not have any markings connects other streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a cycle route. This also is tricky.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>This is a cycle route. If it is the way cyclists use to connect two bits of infrastructure, as well as being mapped, this is convincing.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
* A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it is.<br></blockquote><div><br>Here the use of the word "route" is confusing. Lots of council cycle routes are completely disconnected, and don't actually form any routes. Personally, I use the convention to still tag lcn=yes, but I don't add it to any route relation. However, I appreciate this isn't consistent, and I'd be prepared to change if a universal standard was adopted.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>This is just so very rare that it is an edge case. But I don't think a bike lane or a bike lane sign necessarily makes a route.<br></div><div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
* In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle route.<br></blockquote><div><br>Agreed.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
* A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted on the road. Signs every 500m saying "Cycle Route". Signs at every intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes this is a cycle route.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Bearing in mind that the cycle route can finish way before the destination on the sign. My favourite example being the signposted route that points west down Parramatta Rd at the cnr of Catherine St and Parramatta Rd. It just isn't a route.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed to "I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down."<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"></font></span><br>
</blockquote></div><br>There need to be some cycling amenity on the ground, or a street that logically (but map or by use) connects such cycling amenity.<br><br>I can see an exception for known named routes (such as railtrails), which should be considered differently from council cycle facilities.<br>
<br>Ian.<br><br>