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

[Jass Kurn]

I view that the mapping of the extent of cycleways by Falsernet (Sam
Heppenstall) is correct. Looking at Google StreetView it's clear that
cycleway goes out both ways along the road, with start marked by signs, and
textured paving. There are issues with signage. One sign is nearly obscured
by ivy, and "end of route" signs are missing, but start of cycle route
signs are present creating cycleway.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.384189,-2.625559,3a,75y,119.58h,86.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLvgngGNIGZX58LyN8uWThw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Since Google StreetView is not a usable source, it would be helpful if
Falsernet could provide some on ground imagery, whether that be simple
photographs or using Mapillary.

The deletion of two sections by mapper 'Pete Owens' was wrong. His
reasoning that their existence is "utterly ridiculous" may be a reasonable
view, but not reason to remove them from OSM. The implications of these
cycleway quality  is a matter to be taken up with the appropriate highways
authority.

Might be helpful to map the A-Frame barrier on the cycleway heading north
from the road. It creates an absolute barrier to many disabled cyclists and
wheelchair users. (adjacent gate appears padlocked)

Jass

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 14:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB <
talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220215/b4d51301/attachment.htm>