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

David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com
Thu Aug 30 10:43:05 BST 2007

On 29/08/2007 23:32, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> We need to capture things that make cycling good or bad on a route.  We
> need to capture the elements of what makes a good cycling route, traffic
> volumes, rough surfaces, high pedestrian volumes on paths, squeeze points,
> inclines, propensity for debris, lighting, speed limits, etc, rather than
> an subjective assessment.

As Peter pointed out, The Cambridge Cycling Campaign online planner 
offers you the choice of 'quickest', 'shortest' or 'quietest'. The 
result isn't derived from lanes/paths/roads etc being marked just quiet 
or fast, but by each route (there may be alternative routes on the same 
street - a cycle path on the pavement and the ordinary road, for example 
even sometimes more than two) having a single designation chosen from 
about 25 alternatives (such as 'segregated shared use path', 'main road' 
etc). Each of these has a weighting for speed and quietness and the 
route is the one with the best balance of speed vs distance or quietness 
vs distance. You can also say how fast you typically cycle.

The key point is that a single (substantially objective) parameter is 
sufficient to provide a highly effective route plan. There aren't any 
significant hills in Cambridge though.


More information about the talk mailing list