[Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)
gravitystorm at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 17:39:11 UTC 2020
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 15:09, Simon Still <simon.still at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed route”
I'm broadly in agreement with Simon's point of view on this one. I see
in many parts of the world the thought that if there is any form of
cycling infrastructure, it must be part of a route relation. This
isn't helpful. Some infrastructure is just there and not part of a
route. In fact, the "signed" bit of "signed cycle route" was not only
there to avoid enthusiastic mappers making up their own routes (from
whole cloth), but also to ensure that individual occurrences of
infrastructure aren't mistaken for routes.
* Not all bike paths are part of a larger signed cycling route.
* Not all bike lanes are part of a larger signed cycling route.
* Also, not all 1057 marked stretches of road are part of a larger
signed cycling route. (Same applies to sharrows, for our American
In saying all that, with the state of the art in the LCN era being so
low-quality, along with several years of neglect since then, it's hard
to tell just by looking at one stretch of road whether it is or is not
part of a longer route - often a lot of detective work is required! So
I think the best results are when there are some agreed broad outlines
of how we work, but we shouldn't be afraid to discuss and document in
detail specific edge cases.
More information about the Talk-GB