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

[Ian Sergeant]

On 2 December 2012 09:10, Ben Kelley <ben.kelley at gmail.com> wrote:


> * 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.
> * 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.
>

Agreed.


> * 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.
>

Take the Ryde example here.  They provide a list of street names that
provide a cycle route.  Mostly no on-the-ground markings, but the streets
do constitute a quiet cycle route.  I'd mark it.

If the source is not compatible with our licence then we don't copy it -
this is independent of cycle route or otherwise.


> * 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.
>

This is a cycle route.  If it is the way cyclists use to connect two bits
of infrastructure, as well as being mapped, this is convincing.


> * 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.
>

Here the use of the word "route" is confusing.  Lots of council cycle
routes are completely disconnected, and don't actually form any routes.
Personally, I use the convention to still tag lcn=yes, but I don't add it
to any route relation.  However, I appreciate this isn't consistent, and
I'd be prepared to change if a universal standard was adopted.


> * 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.
>

This is just so very rare that it is an edge case.  But I don't think a
bike lane or a bike lane sign necessarily makes a route.


> * 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.
>

Agreed.


> * 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.
>
>
Bearing in mind that the cycle route can finish way before the destination
on the sign.  My favourite example being the signposted route that points
west down Parramatta Rd at the cnr of Catherine St and Parramatta Rd.   It
just isn't a route.


> 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."
>

There need to be some cycling amenity on the ground, or a street that
logically (but map or by use) connects such cycling amenity.

I can see an exception for known named routes (such as railtrails), which
should be considered differently from council cycle facilities.

Ian.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121204/24002ecc/attachment.html>