[talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Warin]

On 25/4/20 8:55 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
> Willoughby Council (Sydney, NSW) has recently been refreshing its 
> cycle route signage, so I've been riding the routes and reviewing 
> tagging in OSM. Before I go and make a whole lot of changes, I just 
> wanted to confirm best practice.
>
> 1. Infrastructure:
> Painted road markings (but no cycle lane) and/or street signs 
> indicating cycle route:
> cycleway=shared_lane
> eg 
> https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020-04-24%2022_01_11-NSW%20Bushwalking%20Maps.png
>
> Painted cycle lane:
> cycleway=lane
> https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020-04-24%2022_03_56-NSW%20Bushwalking%20Maps.png 
>
>
> This seems to be my interpretation of:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
> and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
>
>
> 2. Cycle Routes:
> Use of network=lcn vs lcn=yes - I assume network=lcn is preferred to 
> lcn=yes? Quite a lot of the current routes have lcn=yes.
>
> Alternatively, should I be trying to create relations? The problem 
> with relations is that the cycleways all interconnect. So while there 
> may be a sensible route from any suburb in Willoughby to any other 
> suburb, but it doesn't seem to lend itself to a collection of 
> relations. Certainly the signage at any given spot just points you to 
> the next suburb.
>
> The link below shows the approximate network (not all are yet 
> built/marked - I'll be updating OSM on the basis of ground surveys)
> http://edocs.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/DocumentViewer.ashx?dsi=2914874
> I don't see that it easily lends itself to relations.


My opinion.

Routes go from A to B. They are not simple road segments.

An example?

Relation: Northbridge-Castle Cove (6282327)
   Tags:
     "name"="Northbridge-Castle Cove"
     "ref"="NCC"
     "route"="bicycle"
     "type"="route"
     "lcn"="yes"
     "network"="Willoughby"

The above is correct.

It contains numerous road segments (ways). Some of these are tagged 
lcn=yes. This is wrong.

Example?

Way: Baringa Road (794266238)
   Tags:
     "source:name"="historical"
     "surface"="paved"
     "maxspeed"="50"
     "name"="Baringa Road"
     "source"="yahoo_imagery"
     "highway"="residential"
     "cycleway"="shared_lane"
     "network"="lcn"

There should be no   "network"="lcn" on the as it does not, by itself, 
form a route.

Similarly I would remove the tag "lcn=yes" on any simple way.

(I would also remove the source tag - I would assume that the state 
source is old and there would have been a few edits of this from other 
sources in the mean time.)


Some routes will use the same ways as another route. That is fine, happens.

Some bicycle routes use parts of hiking routes, sometimes bus routes etc 
etc. This too is fine.