[Talk-GB] New 'cycling' layer - CyclOSM
Simon Still
simon.still at gmail.com
Mon Jan 18 14:55:06 UTC 2021
> On 18 Jan 2021, at 13:59, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On 18/01/2021 13:13, Simon Still wrote:
>> I notice that a new layer has appeared on the OpenStreetMap site in recent weeks - CycleOSM - which gives a more modern look for a cycling map. A lot more detail is visible - eg you can see which side of the road a protected cycleway is situated on - but still seems to have clarity issues for London (as the distinction between a ‘cycle street’ (which appears to bee any thing tagged as a route) and a 20mph street is a different shade of blue
>
> The colour distinctions are certainly too subtle (it probably breaches disability law). Moreover, it doesn't understand access properly. A private road on hospital grounds, but also serving what used to be the nurses' homes, but is now general social housing, is marked up as access=destination, but is being shown as no motor vehicles allowed, but because a cycle lane is noted, having full access to cyclists.
>
> There is no separate access setting for cyclists, so they should also have been treated as bicycle=destination.
>
> Whilst, roads maintained by by the council might well have cycle use encouraged, even for through traffic (there are footpaths connecting to other cycle infrastructure), this road is owned by an NHS trust.
Can you give a location for this? Not sure I understand what you mean.
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are mandatory ones. (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane landscape is changing rather rapidly.)
The problem there is the woeful standard of a lot of UK cycle infrastructure. The idea that we would paint a cycle lane on the ground that didn’t even theoretically prohibit motor vehicles from entering just dons’t make sense to anyone in Europe (looks like this is French in origin).
I think you’re getting at the distinction between dotted (advisory) and solid painted line (mandatory) cycle lanes. In real world use there is no difference in the level of service for cycling so I can forgive them that.
It *does* usefully show Bus lanes (which are more significant that a paint only cycle lane IMO/E) but in London again highlight the issues with a very low bar being set for what has been tagged as a ‘cycle route’ making it hard to read rather than easier.
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list