[Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Richard
Mann<richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Maybe in some other project, but let's stick to factual data for OSM.
The "best way" to cycle for a "dominant user group" is not factual
data.

If you want to make a map showing such routes in order to help
cyclists, prod governments or whatever than that's a great idea, but
that's not what should go into the OSM db.

Cheers,
Andy

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>