[Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Stephen Gower]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:11:20PM +0000, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> - 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.

This sounds reasonable.  Round here (Oxford), there are three types of
on-the-ground signs for the local cycle network:

Numbered signs that appear to meet the "Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002" (TSRGD 2002) - I think these have only been used
where the local network follows a route also on the national network, so
they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892

Numbered "Oxford Cycle Network" signs, EG: http://cycle.st/p34893

Unnumbered TSRGD 2002 signs, with just the route's destination on them, EG:
http://cycle.st/p34890

Obviously, the first two are enough to justify lcn_ref= and in general the
last gets at least lcn=yes.  However, knowing the numbering scheme of the
network it's possible to infer the lcn_ref even when it's not on the sign:
Route 1 (which numbered signposts) follows NCN 51 roughly North-South to the
city centre, then there are 8 more spokes, numbered clockwise, and finally
10 is the ring-road cyclepath.  This used to be displayed as a poster on
information boards around the city, and was the source of of the numbering
when I've used lcn_ref= for unnumbered routes in the past.  I don't think
the poster is on display any more, but that doesn't mean it's bad data!
 
> - 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.

I'm much more nervous about this - OSM is not the place for planning data. I
think =proposed should only be used in the case SomeoneElse mentions.  That
is, the exact route has been finalised but the signs on-the-ground have not
yet been installed. 

cheers

Stephen