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

[Ian Sergeant]

On 04/12/12 15:59, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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.

And 5 years ago you may have said the same thing about in-car GPS. You 
can't have a sign or a route to everywhere you may want to go.

>
>     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.
>

But in labelling a route we're usually making a choice.  The answer to 
what route you take, has an underlying question of why you took it.

>
> 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.

Generally the case, but not always.  My bicycle sign on Parramatta road 
being my best example so I'm sticking with it.  A cycle route down a 
narrow three lane road, carrying trucks who'd soon as take you out as 
look at you.

>  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".

Well, I guess I'm focussed on being alive when I get to B.

Ian.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121204/983144ab/attachment.html>