[OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new highwaytagging scheme - thinking about)

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 12:30:04 BST 2007

On 8/29/07, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:29:24 +0100
> > From: Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new
> >       highwaytagging scheme - thinking about)
> > To: Cameron Patrick <cameron at patrick.wattle.id.au>
> > Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> > Message-ID: <8cb4814066f762c81bc18d9b2bfe246b at acrewoods.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:07:12 +0800, Cameron Patrick
> > <cameron at patrick.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > > I got the impression that "lcn" was reserved for more formal cycle
> > > networks?  I'd go for "cycling=poor|medium|good" (note that this is a
> > > new tag, as distinct from the bike=yes or whatever the current one is
> > > called).
> TO be clear, lcn_ref is used to identify a signed route (which may or may
> not be good to cycle on) and lcn=yes is used to show other useful local
> cycle route and is open to ideas on how to extend its use.

That's not quite how I've been intending - there's lots of signed
London Cycle Network routes that don't have reference numbers, so
lcn=yes* is used for that. For instance, the route along Smuggler's
way at http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/?lat=6702893.62902&lon=-21321.78807&zoom=15&layers=B00
has cycle network signage (blue signs, destinations), but no route
reference number.

I haven't tackled the concept of not-signed-but-nice-anyway routes -
so far I've been concentrating on routes signed by external agencies,
and using the troika of ncn, rcn and lcn for different agencies at
different levels.


* actually route=lcn up until now, but I'll retag stuff shortly.

More information about the talk mailing list