[talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Fri Apr 27 08:08:17 BST 2012


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Cycle and walking routes get relocated, torn up, fences put across them.

...and there's no way we can keep up with such changes.

> Park names?  The name that is on the park prevails - quite often
> different to other sources.

No way. Signage is frequently a low priority from organisations that
maintain parks, trails, etc. Just on bike paths, I've seen as many as
3 different names signed for the same route - in addition to names
provided on websites or other publications.

The name on a sign at the physical site is just one name amongst many.

> On the ground doesn't mean we can't use other sources.  It just means that
> when sources clash, we defer to what is on the ground.  This is in contrast
> to Wikipedia, for instance, which will use a secondary source to determine
> what to include.  OSM will always choose what is physically present, on the
> ground.

It sounds like we don't disagree about very much. I hate these mantras
"map what's on the ground" and "don't map for the renderer", because
they're apt to be misunderstood and over-applied. But I think
essentially there are few instances where our approaches would lead to
very different outcomes.

> I know.  I'm simply saying that where no such human defined route backed up
> by cycle facilities on the ground exists, we should include the features
> present, not invent a route.

And I'm slightly more liberal.

> No doubt it is in the map providers interest to make the route appear
> connected, even when in reality they may not have made a single change to
> the facilities on the ground.  However, the reality may be in some case that
> there are actually gaps in the route.  I see this very much as an edge case,
> and I can see arguments for including the connecting segments in an official
> named route like this one.

Cool.

> Adding physical infrastructure is always useful.  It never does any harm.

Sometimes exhaustively listing every "unofficial" (but "on the
ground") walking track in a park can just create messy confusion. But,
yes, generally.

> Every bad route we add severely diminishes the value of the good ones, and
> we see this happening already in Sydney.  There is a signed cycle route
> heading down Parramatta Rd at Croydon.  This is a 3 lane, very narrow laned
> road with heavy vehicles and high traffic volumes.  If we mark that in OSM
> in a cycle route, we may as well give the game away.

Here, I disagree. You obviously have an interpretation of what a bike
route should be (safe, for starters). But I think if the authorities
have decided a bike route goes down a busy road, then we should follow
that.

If you're seriously arguing against mapping this route, aren't you
contradiction your "map what's on the ground" philosophy? Signs are
"on the ground".

> I've no idea how you allow unofficial routes to be used in moderation.  How
> do you decide which to keep?  How do you decide who gets to decide?

One thing I can say: just because you (or I) don't know the answers to
questions, doesn't mean something is a bad idea. In any cases, the
answers are probably "the community decides, if and when it becomes a
problem".

> Would OSM really be a better project if we were to do a data import from bikely?

I can't see that going well.

> Let's be careful with cycle routes in Australia.

Nah. Compared to organised countries like the UK or Germany, we have
little infrastructure, no wide-scale consistency, and few published
conventions to follow. Until the day comes when there exists something
like the LCN/RCN/NCN system, we're going to have to use liberal
interpretation to achieve a useful result.

>  The cycle facilities are
> sparse compared to the bicycle signs and council routes.  There is no
> central coordinating or certifying authority.  I'd argue against adding
> personal routes, add the physical information for a router instead.

Automatic routers are just one audience. Humans are another. Provide
route information for humans, and let the computers ignore it.


> This information is far more valuable, and as a project it plays to our

It's not an either/or situation.

> strengths.  I'd also argue against adding other routes where no cycle
> facilities exist, or the route is dangerous.  Particularly where the
> information is source from council maps that aren't recently updated, or
> from bicycle signs that point off a main road or cycleway.

Right. You'd like to use interpretation and subjectivity as well.

Steve



More information about the Talk-au mailing list