[talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 15:13, Tom Brennan <website at ozultimate.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

The way cycleway=shared_lane was proposed and documented (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shared_lane) as a
painted icon on the road which indicates to both drivers and cyclists that
the road is shared, even if in Australia it's always shared regardless of
signage, I do think it only makes sense to tag it to indicate the painted
signage on the road. I don't think a beware of cylists or look out for
cyclists road sign counts as cycleway=shared_lane.

I can't see any markings on my Mapillary imagery
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lpdzCigIMdASq4IzX248lA but that's only
from 2017.


>
>  >> 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!
>

Yes see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations network
should be lcn for local routes, rcn for regional routes and ncn for
national routes.


>
> 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


That's kind of why I don't usually bother with the route relations and
instead just tag ways as lcn=yes because there is usually no clear A to B
route and instead just a lot of connections. So in that way tagging lcn=yes
can still help routers prefer cycle routes but we don't need to bother
working out what the route is called and where it starts and ends, which
unless it's surveyable on the ground, I wouldn't bother.

In both those examples "Naremburn Local Routes" is just someones
description and not a signposted or at least well known route name, so I'd
be happy to just remove it but interested to hear what others think. I know
Warrin said he things routes should go from A to B.


>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20200425/0d696b3e/attachment.htm>