<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 15 Dec 2020, at 18:18, Robert Skedgell <<a href="mailto:rob@hubris.org.uk" class="">rob@hubris.org.uk</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">You are correct in stating that 1057 outside a lane on a carriageway<br class="">does not necessarily indicate a route as I had previously thought.<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">"Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise<br class="">signed route”<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">However, if a cycle route in London has 1057 at 150-200m intervals (on<br class="">local streets), or 20-30m intervals on a main road route (LCDS fig.<br class="">6.2), it's an "otherwise signed" route. It's not a particularly well<br class="">signed route and not using 1057.1 for the route number is unhelpful, but<br class="">as some CS and Q route numbers appear to be changing to C route numbers<br class="">they could be out of date anyway (unless Will Norman changes his mind,<br class="">or Shaun Bailey has them all ripped up).<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Coming back to this thread/discussion. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I work for London Cycling Campaign as an infrastructure campaigner and have been thinking about mapping and wayfinding a lot in recent months and there is a real issue with different generations and standards of route signage.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><span style="text-decoration: underline" class=""><a href="https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1" class="">https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1</a></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><span style="text-decoration: underline" class=""><a href="https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding" class="">https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding</a></span></div></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue";" class="">The recent history of cycle routes from LCN (theres not really anything I’m aware of that predates LCN that wasn’t re-signed as part of it) LCN+, then CSH and QW and now just Cycleways. </div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue";" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue";" class="">These three images show the challenge. The first is an attempt to show ‘good safe routes’. Tfl’s is obviously of limited use as there is a lot more out there that *is* useful. But OSM contains a lot of stuff that, in my view, doesn’t actually exist in a useful or followable form - which means its broken for the end user. </div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue";" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">“Safe cycle routes” - TfL cycleway routes, good quiet ways, good safe older infra, legal shared paths, parks <a href="https://ibb.co/W09wSxL" class="">https://ibb.co/W09wSxL</a></font></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">Transport for London - only what meets our newest quality criteria, has been assessed and signposted - <a href="https://ibb.co/8sPkMrq" class="">https://ibb.co/8sPkMrq</a></font><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue";" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">OSM - everything that has ever been marked as a route on a map or could possibly be interpreted as a route in the most liberal interpretation <a href="https://ibb.co/Xsxjgr4" class="">https://ibb.co/Xsxjgr4</a></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">In my local area around Brixton OSM includes/included </font></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">- stuff that appeared on a map many years ago (but not on subsequent map releases) </font></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">- a ‘planned’ route (Q5 across Clapham Common) that has still not been officially designated 5 years later with no evidence ‘on the ground’ </font></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">- ‘routes’ on old maps (but not more recent) where some signs are still present but most are now missing. </font></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue" class="">- ‘routes’ that consist solely of 1057 symbols on the ground, with no signage, that have never appeared as a route on ANY map that I’ve found. </font></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb(220, 161, 13);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">That raises a few questions for me </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">- what is a route *for the purposes of OSM* and are we ensuring that stuff marked as routes is *useful to the end user* being key the key ones. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">So - </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">1) at what point does a route exist?</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">- the planned route across Clapham Common is interesting but not useful to anyone trying to navigate. Would a note or link on the way to source be better than showing a line that may never actually exist be better for a future mapper to refer to?</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">2) at what point is a route considered to *cease to exist* for the purpose of OSM (so that it should be removed)?</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">TfL don’t consider any of the LCN routes to be ‘current’ based on the map above. But some of them obviously *are* still useful and possible to follow</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">However, some LCN routes have definitely fallen into ‘disrepair’ so that they are not, in my experience, possible to follow on the ground. <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1198&layers=C" class="">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1198&layers=C</a> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">The LCN route that runs through the middle here - Leander Road - has no signage that I can find north of Christchurch Road (where there is a finger post to “Brixton”). The spur off to Brockwell Park has no sign on Leander Road (only on the estate road once you’ve turned) so that would be missed. These LCN sections haven’t appeared on borough maps for many years. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">Likewise Battersea Park - Wandsworth council removed all LCN signage a few years ago. Cycling is permitted on the carriage drive but I don’t think it should be marked as a route (it should just be cycling=yes)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">3) what’s the minimum requirement for a route?</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">The original discussion here. I was removing sections of ‘route’ that had nothing more than 1057 markings, had never been on any maps </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=bicycle" class="">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle</a></div><div class="">Refers to ’named numbered or otherwise signed’ but it’s a wiki and it appears the people who’ve edited it are the same that have added these only 1057 symbol routes in the first place, which means it’s a bit of a circular discussion! </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I wouldn’t consider a 1057 only route to be signed. Discussion with transport planners and engineers is that 1057’s are only useful as ‘additional reinforcement’ as part of a larger signing strategy for a route. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></div></div></body></html>