[Talk-GB] Changing "stub" cycleways to pavements

[Edward Catmur]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:28, Mark Goodge <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> In this case, though, it's not just the signs. There's also a tactile
> surface on the pavement which appears to have no other purpose than
> indicating the limit of the shared use section (since it doesn't
> coincide with a crossing point, but does coincide with the signs). So it
> does seem pretty clear, on the ground, that the signs are positioned at
> the point where the highway authority considers the shared use section
> to start.
>

Yes, the buzz strip at the foot of the shared use sign is a pretty clear
indicator that the shared use section starts/ends there.

Having said that, that does seem a somewhat odd design choice, since
> there's no practical reason for a cyclist to use that section. There's
> no obvious reason why the boundary markers (the signs and the tactile
> surface) are located there rather than at the junction with the Greenway
> heading north and the unnamed road heading south. So it's probably not
> particularly helpful to map users to tag those short sections as shared
> use, even though, legally, they almost certainly are.
>

And yet we map dead end roads even when there's "no practical reason" for
motorists to use them. There's no need to make a judgement on whether a
particular map feature is helpful or not (and I have a hard time seeing it
as unhelpful) when we can just map what's (clear) on the ground.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220215/6afdfbf8/attachment.htm>