<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 14 Aug 2020, at 09:31, Robert Skedgell <<a href="mailto:rob@hubris.org.uk" class="">rob@hubris.org.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to<br class="">cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing<br class="">algorithms about the real experience of using them.<br class=""><br class="">Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London<br class="">Cycling Campaign. <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Is there any more information on what LCC are doing in this area? There<br class="">are probably members, myself included, who would be happy to help.<br class=""><br class="">I know that borough groups audit changes to local infra, but having<br class="">detailed photographs and notes are less useful to the wider cycling<br class="">community than they could be if the information never finds its way onto<br class="">OSM.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>See the blog posts that I linked to. </div><div>Plus </div><div> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database" class="">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database</a> </div><div><br class=""></div><div>(Our involvement has now ended but TfL should be continuing to use CID info to improve OSM accuracy) </div><div><br class=""></div><div>More discussion planned within LCC and community to press for better navigation and wayfinding </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but<br class="">some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked<br class="">routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths,<br class="">traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,<br class="">smooth tarmac good) <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have<br class="">surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently<br class="">might help.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>Good to know surface is already widely used - I’d managed to miss that in the work I’d done. <br class=""><div class="">Smoothness is a new tag for me </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What has come up in discussions is that it would be good to map ‘restrictions’ more comprehensively and have routing algorithms that recognised them. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have many - rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii. All of those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo bike or disability adapted cycle. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">An objective would be to be able to plan a ‘disabled suitable route’ </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Simon Still;</div><div class="">Campaigns Team, LCC</div></body></html>