[talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Warin]

On 25/4/20 11:50 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 10:31, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>

Looking at it again ...

"network"="lcn" appears to be more correct...

Possibly "Willoughby" could be tagged "cycle_network"="Willoughby"   see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations



>
>     It contains numerous road segments (ways). Some of these are tagged
>     lcn=yes. This is wrong.
>
>
> Agreed, the lcn=yes should go on the way segment (but is redundant if 
> a relation exists) and not on the relation.
>
>
>     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.
>
>
> Agreed, the network tag should go on the relation not the way, the way 
> itself could have lcn=yes if you know it's part of a route but it 
> hasn't been mapped out as a relation yet.
>
>     Similarly I would remove the tag "lcn=yes" on any simple way.
>
>
> Only if it's part of a network=lcn relation already, if not it's still 
> useful to say there is a route here, but the route hasn't yet been 
> mapped out as a relation.


I would start the relation rather than use "lcn=yes". Then, in the 
relation, a source can be stated (together with any comments, 
description etc) that is clearly the source of the route at this stage.

This would also cause it to show up on 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=7777172 in a meaning full 
way.

Note that this route is incomplete.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20200425/625e26b8/attachment-0001.htm>