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

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> We're heading towards a day when everybody will have a routing application
> on their mobile device or accessible elsewhere.  So navigation is a
> diminishing issue, and desirability for cycling is an increasing one.
>

Interesting thought. I don't know if I totally agree - I tend to carry a
smartphone, *and* I have a GPS mounted on the handlebars, yet neither of
those things is convenient as following actual signs or markings.


>
> If there is no cycling amenity of any kind, then it is just a route?  How
> does it differ from any other just by being signed?
>

I'm not sure I understand your question. By definition, a route is an
abstraction on top of the physical world. "What route did you take to get
there" - there's nothing physically distinguishing about a route.

Maybe we're getting confused by unstated end goals. My interest in "routes"
is having a map (much like opencyclemap) that elevates bike paths and other
signage to the level of highways for cars. "Jump on the X trail, follow
that till you get to the Y trail" etc.

I think maybe some other people in this thread are focussing more on a
"where is good to ride" use case? Definitely valuable, but is that the
primary meaning of "route" in OSM?


> If we start including roads with no cycling amenity, then we devalue every
> other quality cycle route we mark.  Because an end user can no longer
> expect cycle amenity from a marked cycle route they become worthless to
> most of our urban cyclist users who are looking for just that.  Of course
> amenity can come in many varied forms, so I don't mean cycle lanes.
>

Could you elaborate on what "amenity" means to you? Me, I'm assuming that
if the council has put up "bicycle route" signs, it's because they've
determined that that road is inherently better for bikes than some nearby
street - both because it's safer and more comfortable, and because it goes
somewhere mildly useful.


>
> However, I accept that things like railtrails, long distance cycle routes,
> etc are exceptions here - where even poor amenity may want to be included
> in the route.  I'm not quite sure how we distinguish these type of trails
> where people are trying to fill in the gaps, from some of the just plain
> stupid mapped/signed routes that pass for cycle routes in some council
> areas.


Well, I guess they seem "stupid" if you're focusing on "where's good to
ride". They're totally logical and sensible if you're focusing on "how do I
get to point B".

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121204/9f88562f/attachment.html>