<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>Ensuring ground-breaking Welsh Active Travel Bill promotes open data & mapping</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Yesterday the Welsh Government published a consultation on a ground-breaking Active Travel Bill.<BR>
<A HREF="http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/transport/activetravelbill/?lang=enThe">http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/transport/activetravelbill/?lang=enThe</A> White Paper sets out proposals to require Local Authorities in Wales to:<BR>
<BR>
* identify and map the network of routes within their areas that are safe and appropriate for walking and cycling;<BR>
* identify and map the enhancements that would be required to create a fully integrated network for walking and cycling and develop a prioritised list of schemes to deliver the network;<BR>
<BR>
There's surely a huge opportunity to integrate this with OSM and make the mapping of current and proposed routes fit for the 21st century rather than simply repeating the methods of 20th century definitive maps?<BR>
<BR>
In relation to the first bullet point, would OSM need new tags to record suitability of ways for walking and cycling? For example, grading a route based on level of Bikeability training needed to cycle along it? That wouldn't necessarily cover crossings or things like making right turns and there's nothing I'm aware of that's similar for walking - TfL does have a level of service methodology but it's too detailed and complicated. If there was good coverage of things like speed limits on OSM then perhaps some spatial analysis tools could be used to combine different sources of data such as motor traffic flows, KSI and community feelings of traffic intimidation to help to provide some sort of objective justification.<BR>
<BR>
The second proposed map could be more difficult as the routes would initially be indicative or speculative rather than in any way approved, such as the route of HS2 is now. Would this need to be a fork of OSM, for example to enable a local authority to control the proposals and produce a definitive enhancement map every few years rather than having it being continuously changed? Are there any tools for doing this as it's something I'd like to promote as part of neighbourhood planning, since it could help enable communities earmark a share of Community Infrastructure Levy or New Homes Bonus for things like new walking and cycle paths or community facilities.<BR>
<BR>
Given the continuing discussions about Rights of Ways on this list, you may also be interested that the consultation also covers changing Welsh definitions of RoWs so that they are different to the English ones, though nothing is specifically proposed. Defra is due (or rather has been due for some time) to publish a consultation on fundamental changes to RoWs on this side of Offa's Dyke, so maybe the Welsh are waiting to take the lead from that.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Ralph</FONT>
</P>
<br><br><table bgcolor=white style="color:black"><tr><td><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="content-type">
<title>CPRE Footer StarCount</title>
</head>
<body style="height: 31px; width: 260px;">
<a href="http://www.cpre.org.uk"><img
src="http://www.cpre.org.uk/templates/cpremain/images/logo.png"
alt="Campaign to Protect Rural England"
style="border: 0px solid ; width: 255px; height: 77px;"></a><br>
<div
style="width: 808px; text-align: left; font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><br>
CPRE
National Office <small><span
style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span
style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);">| </span></span> 5-11
Lavington
Street, London, SE1 0NZ </small><small><span
style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span
style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"> |</span></span></small><small>
Tel: 020 7981 2800 </small><small><span
style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span
style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"> |
</span></span></small><small>Fax:
020 7981 2899 </small><small
style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"> |
<br>
</small><font
face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font>
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><font
face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<small><span
style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">This email is
confidential and may also be legally privileged. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply and
delete it from your system. Views expressed in this email are those of
the sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Campaign to
Protect Rural England (CPRE). This email and any attachments have been
virus checked by Sophos Anti-Virus. CPRE is registered as a charity
(No. 1089685) and company (No. 4302973) in England. Registered Office:
128 Southwark Street, London SE1 0SW Website: www.cpre.org.uk </span></small><br>
<br>
<small><span
style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span
style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"></span></span></small><small><span
style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span
style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"></span></span></small><small><span
style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span
style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"></span></span></small><small><span
style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span
style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"></span></span></small>
</body>
</html>
</td></tr></table></BODY>
</HTML>