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