[Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

Simon Still simon.still at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 15:06:32 UTC 2020

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 14:35, Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk> wrote:
> If 1057 is used on a carriageway
> rather than on a lane or track, it presumably indicates a route,
> although TSRGD 2016 does not elaborate upon this - is there an LTN which
> does?

Not by any means.  1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for traffic engineers.  

- Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it ‘to alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course drivers should be conscious that there could be cyclists on any road) 

- can’t work out how to get cyclists around a bus stop or parked car? Paint a 1057 to indicate road position. 

OSM Wiki Cycle_routes <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes>
"Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed route” 

I would argue that a ‘route’ marked with nothing but 1057 symbols is not useful in any way and doesn’t meet that definition 

I have similar issues with London’s Q network - sections of un-numbered quietway.  However, these should indicate a certain level of service - ie that they meet TfL s quality criteria in terms of traffic volumes etc - but also have a point.  Q sections are supposed to be feeders for the strategic cycle network of QW and CS routes - ie follow a Q and you should soon get to a main, destination signposted, route.  (though again, naming and numbering being revised and all routes that meet *latest* quality standards will be C numbered)  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201215/a59e7c7c/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list