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

[Simon Still]

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 18:18, Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> You are correct in stating that 1057 outside a lane on a carriageway
> does not necessarily indicate a route as I had previously thought.
> 
>> "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise
>> signed route”
> 
> However, if a cycle route in London has 1057 at 150-200m intervals (on
> local streets), or 20-30m intervals on a main road route (LCDS fig.
> 6.2), it's an "otherwise signed" route. It's not a particularly well
> signed route and not using 1057.1 for the route number is unhelpful, but
> as some CS and Q route numbers appear to be changing to C route numbers
> they could be out of date anyway (unless Will Norman changes his mind,
> or Shaun Bailey has them all ripped up).

Coming back to this thread/discussion.  

I work for London Cycling Campaign as an infrastructure campaigner and have been thinking about mapping and wayfinding a lot in recent months and there is a real issue with different generations and standards of route signage.

https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1 <https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1>
https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding <https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding>

The recent history of cycle routes from LCN (theres not really anything I’m aware of that predates LCN that wasn’t re-signed as part of it) LCN+, then CSH and QW and now just Cycleways. 

These three images show the challenge.  The first is an attempt to show ‘good safe routes’.  Tfl’s is obviously of limited use as there is a lot more out there that *is* useful. But OSM contains a lot of stuff that, in my view, doesn’t actually exist in a useful or followable form - which means its broken for the end user. 

“Safe cycle routes” - TfL cycleway routes, good quiet ways, good safe older infra, legal shared paths, parks https://ibb.co/W09wSxL

Transport for London - only what meets our newest quality criteria, has been assessed and signposted - https://ibb.co/8sPkMrq 

OSM - everything that has ever been marked as a route on a map or could possibly be interpreted as a route in the most liberal interpretation https://ibb.co/Xsxjgr4 <https://ibb.co/Xsxjgr4>

In my local area around Brixton OSM includes/included  
- stuff that appeared on a map many years ago (but not on subsequent map releases) 
- a ‘planned’ route (Q5 across Clapham Common) that has still not been officially designated 5 years later with no evidence ‘on the ground’ 
- ‘routes’ on old maps (but not more recent) where some signs are still present but most are now missing. 
- ‘routes’ that consist solely of 1057 symbols on the ground, with no signage, that have never appeared as a route on ANY map that I’ve found. 


That raises a few questions for me 
- what is a route  *for the purposes of OSM* and are we ensuring that stuff marked as routes is *useful to the end user* being key the key ones.  

So - 

1) at what point does a route exist?
- the planned route across Clapham Common is interesting but not useful to anyone trying to navigate.  Would a note or link on the way to source be better than showing a line that may never actually exist be better for a future mapper to refer to?

2) at what point is a route considered to *cease to exist* for the purpose of OSM (so that it should be removed)?
TfL don’t consider any of the LCN routes to be ‘current’ based on the map above.  But some of them obviously *are* still useful and possible to follow

However, some LCN routes have definitely fallen into ‘disrepair’ so that they are not, in my experience, possible to follow on the ground.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1198&layers=C <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1198&layers=C> 
The LCN route that runs through the middle here - Leander Road - has no signage that I can find north of Christchurch Road (where there is a finger post to “Brixton”). The spur off to Brockwell Park has no sign on Leander Road (only on the estate road once you’ve turned) so that would be missed.  These LCN sections haven’t appeared on borough maps for many years. 

Likewise Battersea Park - Wandsworth council removed all LCN signage a few years ago. Cycling is permitted on the carriage drive but I don’t think it should be marked as a route (it should just be cycling=yes)

3) what’s the minimum requirement for a route?
The original discussion here.  I was removing sections of ‘route’ that had nothing more than 1057 markings, had never been on any maps 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=bicycle>
Refers to ’named numbered or otherwise signed’ but it’s a wiki and it appears the people who’ve edited it are the same that have added these only 1057 symbol routes in the first place, which means it’s a bit of a circular discussion! 

I wouldn’t consider a 1057 only route to be signed.  Discussion with transport planners and engineers is that 1057’s are only useful as ‘additional reinforcement’ as part of a larger signing strategy for a route. 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210113/90c92725/attachment-0001.htm>