[talk-au] RMS (NSW)'s Bicycle infrastructure map in beta ( http://www.bicycleinfo.nsw.gov.au/maps/cycleways.html )
inas66+osm at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 05:51:55 BST 2012
On 20 August 2012 12:53, Sam Russell <g.samuelrussell at gmail.com> wrote:
> The two things I am interested in mapping are legal designations that don't
> appear on other maps—riding out the bounds of "Shared Path" designations
> where these are rideable. I think these designations often provide
> necessary bridging infrastructure such as the Shared Path on the south side
> of Cleveland street linking Moore Park to the Bourke Street cycleway. And
> secondly, confirming claims by authorities that routes or infrastructures
> exist. I think it could help to clarify some of these things over time, and
> then write them up for the wiki.
There are so many variations on this.
There are facilities that may be strictly illegal for bicycles to use,
but are practical and well used as such (Numerous cut-thrus at the end
There are facilities are clearly signposted but provide no facility
(Tempe Cycle Route at Innesdale Rd/Princes Highway).
There are facilities that are clearly intended as cycle facilities,
but often lack sign markings (Lucas Heights to Menai has a wide path
with cycle crossing lights, but no sign markings on the facility
There are facilities that may be strictly legal to use in a rather
obscure (literal) interpretation of the law, but are possibly
unintentional. I put your case of legal cycleways extending around
blocks from the last shared path sign if there is no end path sign on
the turns/side streets into this category.
> I do the first because I often feel ashamed to make a logical decision to
> use what appears to me to be a footpath, only to discover months later when
> wandering that it is in fact designated as a shared path, but that the
> signage is located 1200m away behind six corners in the continuous path.
1.2km is a long way to have no indications that a path is a cycleway in Sydney.
> What is a OSM highway=cycleway? A 2m minimum width path with any
> designation excluding motorists and permitting cyclists? (
> ) Cleveland street south would meet that, but shouldn't be marked as such
> because of its sight lines, etc.
I'd hazard a guess that Victoria Rd doesn't meet many of the same
requirements, and it constitutes the main cycle route in that
> What if the primary purpose of a path as narrow as 80cm in relation to
> cycling infrastructure is linking dedicated cycleways with heavily sharrowed
> "routes."? (I'm still not sure about what to do with centre/right of lane
> bicycle marked roads that make sense to cycle on).
> In an ideal world the legal designation, customary use, way surface and
> smoothness, way width would all be available.
Yes, it would be nice if we could separate the legality and
suitability of each facility. Within legality, we can note whether
they are clearly signed, other indicators that would make it
reasonable to assume they are legal to cycle on.
> Two further questions:
> I know that in the distant past (before the blue bicycle symbols on
> telegraph poles, even) councils tried to claim that bicycle advisory signs
> marked on roads indicate a route. This is fairly ridiculous, and the modern
> signage guidelines are better (but not implemented). It would be good to
> get a citation for this in relation to discovering / refuting declared
I've never seen anyone disagree with this. I don't think we need a
citation, we can just ignore it. More of an issue to me is people
assuming that the blue directional signs constitute a route. Take for
example the constant blue signs pointing left of the Grand
Parade/General Holmes Drive when heading for the airport tunnel.
Signs that don't point you towards a route at all, but are really just
"get the hell of this road", signs. The blue sign that points
straight down six narrow laned, truck-way that is Parramatta Road at
Catherine Street. Even the sign that points straight from the end of
the King St cycleway straight across onto King St proper is a bit of a
> The idea of fully compliant routes in Australia is ridiculous. While this
> is a point of contention, verifiability of routes is needed. I'd put the
> level of refutation at a discontinuity of infrastructure and markings, with
> no signage, and with no custom or practice amongst cyclists of using the
> route. Wilson St Darlington is a great example of an existing route. It is
> a highly trafficked customary route, with continuous infrastructure, and a
> presence on council maps indicating a route. Without either the
> infrastructure OR the high customary traffic, I wouldn't mark it as a route.
I agree totally. Wilson St is a route. A critical mass has
something to do with making a cycling route. Wilson St is quick,
efficient, safe, with good connections - everything you look for in a
cycle route, IMO.
The nature of OSM makes it suitable to capture this information,
because the community has people who cycle the routes rather than
people who drive their vans to put up signs. We just need to get the
best way of capturing it.
What do I do now? In urban areas..
For now, if its 2m wide path or paved cut-thru and clearly signposted
or gives reasonable indications of being a legal cycle facility I tag
it highway=cycleway. Unfortunately, yes, this sometimes includes
paths with poor sightlines and bad road crossings. These things are
still being built today.
It is is any narrower and legal, then it gets highway=footway, bicycle=yes.
If there is some reason for a cyclist to choose a street rather than
streets around it, and it has some indication of an official route,
then I tag it. The reason to choose it might be width, cycle traffic,
cycle priority, cycle lanes. If the road is no better (or worse) than
those around it, then I personally don't bother giving it a tag as a
More information about the Talk-au