[talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Tom Brennan]

On 25/04/2020 11:46 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 08:57, Tom Brennan <website at ozultimate.com>
> wrote:
>> 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
> 
> cycleway=shared_lane is only if there is a marking on the ground, so
> if it's a marked route but no bicycle stencil on the ground then it's
> not cycleway=shared_lane in my view because cycleway is tagging the 
> infrastructure on the ground.

Agree in general.

The one exception is that many of the cycle routes dogleg through the 
residential streets. In some cases, I don't think the short legs of the 
doglegs have bicycle stencils on the ground as they are too short. But 
they do have cycle street signage (directional arrows), so I'd argue 
that these are intended to be shared lanes.

Example:
https://ozultimate.com/temp/2020_04_25_12_38_06_NSW_Bushwalking_Maps.png
The red legs have stencils on the ground, the blue legs (from memory) 
have street signage.

 >> 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.
 >
 > network=lcn goes on the relation not on the way. lcn=yes goes on the
 > way, but is redundant if it's already part of a relation. Personally
 > I'd use lcn=yes on a way if I know the segment is part of a route,
 > but don't know or have time to map out the full route relation.

Ah, I think that generally makes it clearer.

On the relation, what about network=Willoughby vs network=lcn? CycleOSM 
seems to be expecting network=lcn, not that tagging for a renderer is key!

A couple of route examples I can see:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6282327
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6282327
have network=Willoughby and lcn=yes.

However, if I go over to Cammeray, someone has added all of the ways to 
a single relation (named Cammeray Local Routes, tagged with lcn=yes and 
network=lcn). In some ways this makes sense, since these reflect the 
interconnected series of local routes. It's not really a single route, 
but it is a useful way of grouping.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6283487
Naremburn is similar:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6282427


The references I assume are just made up to give renderers something to 
put on the various maps. They don't seem to relate to anything on any 
signs or in council brochures.

cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com