[talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 21 23:07:03 UTC 2020

Hi Ash, it's great to see some interest in improving bicycle infrastructure
in OSM!

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 15:46, Ash Logan <ash at heyquark.com> wrote:

> Hey all!
> TfNSW's recent waiver-signing gave us access to their Cycleways dataset
> ( https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/cycleway-data ) which
> includes shapefiles and information about cycle paths, shared paths,
> cycle lanes, and shared lanes. The data is quite detailed ( see
> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/resources/NSW%20Cycle%20Data%20Guide.pdf
> ) covering everything from lit= to operator=.
> There's been discussions about this dataset and its place in OSM on the
> OSM World Discord server ( https://discord.gg/q6HnfNZ #asia-pacific )
> and we think we should present to you lot for discussion. Here's a
> summary of the consensus so far:
> - The metadata about the ways is useful in OSM, but the shapefiles
> aren't accurate enough for an import. The data is also too old to be
> considered for a direct import (some ways date to 2009!)

For me it's more that we already have a lot of cycle infrastructure mapped
which is constantly being updated and improved so if anything TfNSW data
should be treated as a guide only and not the only source of information
especially for indications of missing or removed cycle infrastructure.

cycleway:width on a cycleway=shared_lane doesn't make a lot of sense to me,
is that the road width? in which case it's just width=, or is it the lane

After a quick scan it looks like a cycle route is marked as
cycleway=shared_lane, though generally I'd only add cycleway=shared_lane if
there is some kind of bicycle marking on the ground, is that reasonable?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20200222/c7eaa849/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list