[Talk-GB] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes (quality)

[Andy Robinson]

Martin,

The area I was looking in was Birmingham. Can't vouch for anywhere outside
the small area of Sutton Coldfield I was looking at.

Cheers
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin - CycleStreets [mailto:list-osm-talk-gb at cyclestreets.net]
> Sent: 11 October 2012 16:17
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes (quality)
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Dave F. wrote:
> 
> > This is why I've largely ignored the DfT data. It just isn't accurate
> > enough to blindly copy into OSM ad hoc. I enter cycle lane data such
> > as this only when I have been to an area & actually seen it, which
> > renders most of the DfT info worthless.
> 
> The intention certainly is that people should be merging it only with
local
> knowledge.
> 
> However, I've certainly found it pretty accurate (well above 90%) in the
areas
> I know and have merged in. Cambridge for instance has a lot of
> infrastructure, and the data here is good, despite being one of the
earliest to
> be surveyed 3-4 years ago.
> 
> Which area(s) have you found to be inaccurate, out of interest?
> 
> 
> > I've even seen data for NCN 4 that's illegal where it suggests a right
> > hand turn but is explicitly denied by signs.
> 
> There aren't any turn restrictions in the data as far as I'm aware.
> 
> 
> Martin,                     **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
> Developer, CycleStreets     **  http://www.cyclestreets.net/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5823 - Release Date: 10/10/12