[talk-au] When is a road a cycle route?

[Steve Bennett]

Hi Ben,

 Thanks very much for starting this conversation - yes, it's a messy one.
Mostly because the European (and particularly UK) concept of "cycle route"
hasn't really existed here. But it's still worth trying to fit into because
lots of tools (especially OpenCycleMap) do support that concept.
* Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing
this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route.

> * As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would
> say this is not a cycle route.
> * As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street
> to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a
> cycle route in the OSM sense.
>

Agreed.


> * As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle
> route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets
> do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly
> common. I would say this is not a cycle route.
>

Disagree. If it's a designated cycle route - it's a cycle route. Could you
elaborate on your reasoning?


>
> Tricky ones:
>
> * A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In
> fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its "cycle
> route". This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the
> (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground.
>

I'm not sure of the difference between this and the previous one. Is it
that in this case, there are no markings *anywhere* for the route?


> * A section of street that does not have any markings connects other
> streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road).
> Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a
> cycle route. This also is tricky.
>

I generally mark these, because it makes the map more useful. I think it's
pedantry to leave little gaps in the map because those particular streets
don't happen to have the markings shared by the rest of the route.
Unhelpful pedantry, at that.


> * A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes.
> I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it
> is.
>

Yeah. Sometimes I mark these as LCN, sometimes I don't. If I can infer some
sort of "route" thinking (ie, a series of streets or paths that connect),
I'm more likely to.


> * A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to
> ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known
> cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is.
>

Personally, I don't equate "bike lane" with "cycle route" in the way that
others (notably John Henderson, below) do. Bike lanes are infrastructure.
Cycle routes are, well, routes. Quiet streets can be part of a bike route,
but not have bike lanes because they're quiet. Similarly, busy roads can
have bike lanes without being part of a bike route.


>
> Easier ones:
>
> * In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared
> use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle
> route.
>

What do you mean by "connect" here? Simply that one path joins the other
two? But yeah, probably.


> * A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted
> on the road. Signs every 500m saying "Cycle Route". Signs at every
> intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes
> this is a cycle route.
>

Again, I'm not really fussed what's painted on the ground. The indication
of a cycle route, in my local council areas, is generally signs with a
little bicycle, possibly the words "bicycle route" and an arrow. They
frequently point down streets with no other bicycle infrastructure.
Example: http://goo.gl/maps/M7FB9

I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned
> with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed
> to "I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down."
>

To me, a "bicycle route" is much more about navigability than desirability
for cycling. That is, when you "follow a bicycle route", it should be easy
to follow - based on signs, or good external (and official) documentation.
Whether it has painted bike lanes is irrelevant.

One of complications that arises, though, in inferring a route from signs
is how far you allow between signs. What if the signs are far enough apart
that there is ambiguity about which choice of streets in between is
intended? etc...

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121204/58e5c115/attachment.html>