<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/12/12 15:59, Steve Bennett wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+z=q=vYSr5OvGM5yijgGMnXY_R0bQ9Zi-=aQQ=mzKiKDC9aUg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ian Sergeant <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:inas66+osm@gmail.com" target="_blank">inas66+osm@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div>We're heading towards a day when everybody will have
a routing application on their mobile device or
accessible elsewhere. So navigation is a diminishing
issue, and desirability for cycling is an increasing
one.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Interesting thought. I don't know if I totally agree - I
tend to carry a smartphone, *and* I have a GPS mounted on
the handlebars, yet neither of those things is convenient as
following actual signs or markings.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And 5 years ago you may have said the same thing about in-car GPS.
You can't have a sign or a route to everywhere you may want to go.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+z=q=vYSr5OvGM5yijgGMnXY_R0bQ9Zi-=aQQ=mzKiKDC9aUg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If there
is no cycling amenity of any kind, then it is just a route?
How does it differ from any other just by being signed?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
I'm not sure I understand your question. By definition, a
route is an abstraction on top of the physical world. "What
route did you take to get there" - there's nothing
physically distinguishing about a route.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
But in labelling a route we're usually making a choice. The answer
to what route you take, has an underlying question of why you took
it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+z=q=vYSr5OvGM5yijgGMnXY_R0bQ9Zi-=aQQ=mzKiKDC9aUg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div>Could you elaborate on what "amenity" means to you? Me,
I'm assuming that if the council has put up "bicycle route"
signs, it's because they've determined that that road is
inherently better for bikes than some nearby street - both
because it's safer and more comfortable, and because it goes
somewhere mildly useful.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Generally the case, but not always. My bicycle sign on Parramatta
road being my best example so I'm sticking with it. A cycle route
down a narrow three lane road, carrying trucks who'd soon as take
you out as look at you.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+z=q=vYSr5OvGM5yijgGMnXY_R0bQ9Zi-=aQQ=mzKiKDC9aUg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> However, I accept that things like railtrails, long
distance cycle routes, etc are exceptions here - where even
poor amenity may want to be included in the route. I'm not
quite sure how we distinguish these type of trails where
people are trying to fill in the gaps, from some of the just
plain stupid mapped/signed routes that pass for cycle routes
in some council areas.<span class="HOEnZb"></span></div>
<div><br>
Well, I guess they seem "stupid" if you're focusing on
"where's good to ride". They're totally logical and sensible
if you're focusing on "how do I get to point B".<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I guess I'm focussed on being alive when I get to B.<br>
<br>
Ian.<br>
</body>
</html>