[Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes

[Richard Mann]

While "a signposted route on the ground" is the best criterion for a
reactive mapper, I think you can proactively identify cycle routes
unambiguously prior to that (at least well enough that there won't be edit
wars). Sometimes the reality follows the map.

I think the criteria are something like:
1) clear objective for the route (best way from x to y)
2) reasonably clear intended user group (Sustrans' sensible 12-yr old, for
instance)
3) route alternatives to have been surveyed on the ground, and considered
against those objectives, to the extent that the dominant input becomes
local knowledge

If the "intended user group" is sufficiently dominant for the area, I think
it's reasonable to put such routes in as the local cycle network. See the
ones I've set up in Oxford as examples (use lcn=yes instead of
lcn_ref=number if they are unnumbered). In the Oxford case, 3 of the routes
are "fully" signposted, the rest are intermittently signposted, and a
reasonable distillation of what has been long-discussed (and putting them on
the map is helping to prod the County into improving the signposting).

But I wouldn't put in routes that are for small/atypical user groups, or
which aren't notably better at achieving an objective than just using the
normal road hierarchy.

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20090728/58942c76/attachment-0001.html>