[Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Andy Robinson]

Works for me

Cheers
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:richard at systemeD.net]
> Sent: 28 November 2011 17:11
> To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
> Subject: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> We seem to be ending up with wildly conflicting use of 'lcn=yes',
'lcn_ref=*',
> and similar tags across Britain.
> 
> In London, these tags are used as you would expect - to map the signposted
> London Cycle Network. It's pretty much in keeping with ncn= and rcn=
> tagging.
> 
> In Worcester, there's an official city network with some numbered routes,
> others with symbols (e.g. purple diamond). These are not fully mapped yet,
> but where they are, they're tagged with lcn tags.
> 
> In Cambridge, the official city network isn't numbered, but it is
coherently
> and clearly signed. These routes are also tagged using lcn tags as you'd
> expect. Nottingham and Wisbech seem to be the same.
> 
> So far so good. But there also appear to be lots of rather more confusing
uses
> of the tag.
> 
> In some places, we have large-scale leisure routes tagged as lcn. The
Chiltern
> Cycleway and Round Berkshire Cycleway are two examples that spring to
> mind. In others, we have networks of local leisure routes tagged as lcn
(e.g.
> Warwickshire - contrast with Wales where rcn= is used for the Wales Cycle
> Breaks routes). In yet others, we have small isolated rural routes or
links
> tagged as lcn.
> 
> On occasion people tag a selection of roads or paths as LCN just to get
them
> to render as bike-friendly on OCM, when in fact there's nothing
particularly
> networky or even route-y about them.
> 
> There are also a couple of towns where local cyclists have devised their
own
> networks and tagged them as 'lcn', even though there's little or no
on-the-
> ground evidence. In some cases the cyclists are in active discussions with
the
> transport authority to get this network adopted, but in others it may be
more
> wistful.
> 
> Sites like CycleStreets, BikeHike, and OpenCycleMap, apps like
CycleStreets
> and Bike Hub, and Garmin maps mean that OSM is probably now the most-
> used cycle map of Britain. We have a responsibility to make it accurate,
> consistent, and readily understood.
> 
> I would like to propose that:
> 
> - Local cycle networks with objective, on-the-ground evidence (usually
> signposts) are tagged as lcn=yes (and lcn_ref=..., lcn_name=..., or the
> relations equivalent) as at present.
> 
> - Cycle networks that are not significantly verifiable on the ground, but
are
> proposed for official adoption and are under active discussion with the
> transport authority, are tagged as lcn=proposed.
> 
> - Large-scale (non-NCN) leisure routes and county-wide networks are moved
> to rcn=, to accord with the similar routes already tagged as such (e.g.
National
> Byway and light-blue-number routes).
> 
> - Non-network routes are not tagged as lcn=, but may of course be tagged
as
> route=bicycle (perhaps as a relation).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb