Talk:Cycle routes

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I've moved the discussions from the main page onto, well, this discussion page.

Contents

Discussion

(The following was copied from Cycle layer)

I'd prefer the suggested ele-tag at the start/end of a way/segment and then calculate the increase (or is it called slope?!?). But I'm not sure if the renderers are able to do this calculation. --Kumakyoo 17:21, 14 May 2007 (BST)
even if they are not able to do it now, they will be, so lets use this.
I don't see the point, why not just use SRTM-data and have the renderer or routeplanner or whatever take heights into account automatically? I think SRTM has good enough quality for most practical purposes.
SRTM data ends somewhere between latitude 60 to 62 depending on longitude. Alv 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues

reusing routes

I just walked part of a cycle route. In fact we walked three cycle routes at once. I would like to create a relation, type=route and then copy this to the two other relations containing the same ways. Or is there a smarter way to go about this? Could relations contain other relations? I have the same problem with bus routes. They also tend to overlap quite a bit. Oh, I think for a bus route I actually tried another trick. Open route in JOSM, select all ways of it, then close and add those ways to a another route. The problem with that approach was that backward/forward information was lost... --Polyglot 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Route tags on ways

Why the rewording of the message about tagging ways for routes? They *are* deprecate right? You shouldn't tag new routes with that scheme since you can't tag more than one route on the same way properly and you keep the data together when it's in a relation, decreasing chances for errors dramatically. --Eimai 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's generally harder to use relations for new users, there's no plans to drop support for the basic way tags by any of the current applications, and so it's a bit much to call them deprecated. Plus I'm a bit wary of calling anything deprecated when we have no actual official tag set to start with (just agreed suggestions). I agree fully that it's often better to use the relations as they have all the benefits you mention, and that their use should be encouraged, hence modifying the wording rather than just deleting the sentence entirely. -- Randomjunk 16:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
But new users have to get familiar with the concept of relations anyway. You split a way - you possibly break a relation. -- Eckhart 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not true when you edit using the latest version of JOSM. The 2 broken parts are automatically added to the relation.--Itserik 20:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, better example: You append some nodes to a way - you break a way. Especially easy because JOSM tries to re-use ways. -- Eckhart 21:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Named routes and references?

Near me there is a local cycle network(?), where the entire route is named, and is also composed of several named sections. How should the network's name be indicated? How should the individual section names be indicated? --Hawke 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Create a relation of the type route for each section. Use name for the name, ref for the abbreviation or reference number. If you think the network needs a name, too, you can create another overall relation and add all sections, but I don't think that is necessary. --Lulu-Ann 11:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed routes in relations

What is the best method of marking proposed sections of routes in relations? The NCN 22 through Banstead is of propsed status, but the route through the borough of Epsom is fully implemented. Should two relations be used, one of each status, or should one relation be used with proposed or something similar be placed in the role for the specific ways? BlueSpecs 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mountain bike routes

In Switzerland we have designated National and Regional Mountain Bike Routes. How are we to differentiate them from the other bike routes? The names are different, but the numbers duplicate. Suggestions? RickH86 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Use route=mtb, that's what others are using for mountainbike routes. I don't think it's documented somewhere, but it gets rendered on the cycle map IIRC. --Eimai 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm now actually wondering whether it should be route=mtb, or network=mtb... --Eimai 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think network=mtb would be more accurate, but if it renders them differently with route=mtb, that is better. That still doesn't help my ref, unless I use MTB#.. RickH86 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For reference if you havent noticed: Mountainbiketours, I am in preference of route=mtb instead of network=mtb because network=*. Discussion about this is better continued here though if there are valid arguments. To me network could be used as network=mtbnn/mtbrn/mtbln (mtb national network, mtb regional network, mtb local network). On the other hand I only know of one kinda national mountainbikeroute (Alpentour Austria) and to me it's hard to see the difference between local and regional mtb routes. Maybe a better classification would be to organise mtb routes by daytours and tours with more stages that are usually completed during several days.--Extremecarver 13:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)--Extremecarver 13:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have been trying to come up with a way to do a cycle route without stopping and recording every turn, etc, especially when you are in area without much of a map on OSM. I found mapmyride.com is helpful for keeping track of where you were. RickH86 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Marking access roads

In the city I live in, Göteborg, we have a network of cycle paths, but there are a number of places where there is no dedicated cycle path, instead there is a recommended route on a low-traffic street. It makes sense to capture this information and display on a cycle-centric map. There is a map published by the city that shows these recommended routes. The dotted lines are the recommended routes and the filled lines are cycle paths. I'm not planning to copy this verbatim, but instead find good such routes and mark them on the map. The question is how to tag them. Can anyone suggest a good way to tag them, and to have them rendered on the bicycle map? Here is the area in OpenStreetMaps. Norpan 11:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

bicycle=designated combined with lcn=yes is the way to go, in my opinion. You may need to use relations as described on the main page, as well. --Hawke 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well they are not routes per se. At least I don't know of any route numbers or route names. It's just a bunch of bicycle paths and lanes, those are relatively easy to tag (although I sometimes feel the need for more expressive tagging, for instance on what side of a road a bicycle lane is, and the fact that a bicycle lane can be two-way even if the road is one-way). Tagging the recommended access roads as bicycle=designated is maybe a the best for now, but the access roads are not designated for bicycles, they are just recommended. So it's not a physical attribute of the road but a routing attribute. So maybe there is a need for a new tag. Something like bicycle=recommended that can be put there for the purposes of the bicycle map and for automatic bicycle routing. Norpan 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Are these routes marked with a sign? If so, then it's definitely designated. Note that "designated" basically means "marked with a sign" and has no relation to the word "designed". If the only way to know that they're good bike routes is by the map, it's a grey area; however, especially since the city publishes that map, I think it's fair to consider the map to be an official designation too. Hope this helps. --Hawke 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I will follow your advice and tag them as designated. Sometimes they are marked by destination markers with a little bicycle on them. Other times the marker is not there but it's pretty obvious given the design of the cycle path system that these roads were intended as access between cycle paths and then I will mark them as designated too. Thanks! Norpan 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this leads to weird routing for cars. It will not use the road as it is marked as designated for bicycles. But even without the tag, bicycle routing will use the road because it's shorter. It's simply a rendering/mapping issue to have the tag. Norpan 13:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Index __NOTOC__

I have removed __NOTOC__ on the main page. I think this page has become so big that it needs a reference table on top.--Extremecarver 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NCN / LCN conflicts

In Oxford we have a situation where part of the NCN uses a section of road that is (much) too busy to be recommended as part of the Local Cycle Network. We've discussed the matter with Sustrans locally, who are happy for the NCN to be suppressed for local presentations. We could go down the line of creating a special rendering, but would prefer this was dealt with by the main OSM Cycle Map rendering.

My best thought on dealing with this so far is to change the NCN markings to a much narrower shaded line at zoom levels 13-18 when the NCN coincides with a lcn=* or lcn_ref=* tag. This would be combined with _not_ rendering for lcn when the tag is lcn=no. This would leave the NCN as still marked, but much less dominant.--RichardMann 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have special rendering requirements, why not just making them yourself? It's a bit awkward to ask for changing the rendering of all cycle routes in the world just because there's a stretch where the NCN passes a busy road... In 99% of the cases routes tagged as ncn are much more important than those tagged with lcn. --Eimai 15:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Mine is a local example, but illustrative of a more general problem. Maybe a more general solution would be a better bet. At the moment, LCN overwrites NCN at zoom1-12, and NCN dominates LCN at zoom13-18 (brighter colour, wider shading). This is the wrong way round - NCN should dominate at small scale, LCN should be dominant at large scale. LCN is not a subsidiary network to NCN, it serves a different function at a much more local level. The more fundamental solution would be for NCN to show as narrow red shading at zoom13-18 (regardless of LCN tagging). Maybe the NCN shading should narrow in stages as you progress to higher zoom levels.--RichardMann 11:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
IMHO ncn should always look more important than rcn, and rcn should always look more important than lcn, and that should be at all zoom levels. It's the only logical way of keeping the hierarchy clear. It would just be confusing otherwise. --Eimai 13:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspect you may be fairly unique in using lcn as a third level in the hierarchy in Antwerpen. Mostly people seem to tag lcn for routes that have a local destination as an objective, or are interesting, or signposted, and I feel that this is as much a legitimate use of the tag as yours. Andy's words: "At low zoom levels it is intended for overviews of the National Cycle Network; at higher zoom levels it should help with planning which streets to cycle on, where you can park your bike and so on." I stand by my suggestion for rendering; I think what I'm seeking to be rendered is a reflection how most people tag, which has an lcn independent of ncn/rcn, and not as a third layer in a hierarchy. It would appear that we must differ.--RichardMann 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's what lcn is used for in the Netherlands and in Belgium: local routes, usually around 30-50km, often with a certain "theme", making a loop, and only for touristic use. The routes have nothing to do with those classified as ncn or rcn. As far as I understood the UK situation, it's used there for routes like those from the London cycle network: non-touristic routes crossing the street that actually bring you somewhere. And ncn was touristic, wasn't it? So how can the two be related to each other and should their rendering match that non-existing connection between ncn and lcn? --Eimai 19:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Further study of Antwerpen shows the LCN tag is being used there to show cycle tours rather than a network. These sometimes follow NCN/RCN and sometimes go their own way. They don't fit into the NCN/RCN hierarchy - they are an overlay. I think there might be a case for a fourth colour for signposted tours - perhaps green. But I also think that these macro-scale networks need to fade at larger scales (perhaps just become reference numbers at zoom15), to let the micro-scale LCN take the foreground. Otherwise opencyclemap just becomes dominated by touring info.--RichardMann 12:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually they are a kind of network: the routes are (usually) signed with the same kind of signs in each province (and it's usually the provinces that manage the routes), and the routes are often connected to each other as well (so you could combine two or more loops). --Eimai 13:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
And the ncn/rcn/lcn hierarchy works as follows in Belgium: ncn is for the touristic routes crossing the country, so no discussion there. rcn (also for touristic use only, and better known as the cycle node network) can be used to cycle between places that are far apart (from region to region, as it were) and the lcn routes can only be used to stay in one area (i.e. local). --Eimai 13:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Some Dutch/German towns seem in practice to use RCN for their main local network, others use LCN (and in the UK we use LCN, because RCN is used for secondary linear touristic routes). The Dutch RCN seems pretty local in scale, even if one of its purposes is regional touring. I'm thinking perhaps that we need 2 colours for tours (one for NCN and the other for routes like your local tours and UK RCN), and 2 colours for local-scale routes (Dutch RCN and LCN). I'd still like to see the tours fade as you zoom in to a more local scale, but I think getting a bit more harmonisation on how we show secondary touring routes might be a sensible first step, otherwise the rendering will always be a compromise.--RichardMann 22:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
RCN a local thing in the Netherlands and Belgium? RCN is exclusively used for the cycle node network, and that network almost completely covers both countries with one network (and there's even a bit in Germany). I'm sure that most cyclists on the network just do a local tour on a single day, but at least it's also possible to use it to make bigger trips between cities (or even cross both countries), and that's not something which can be said from the routes tagged with lcn. Take a look at the map here to get a better understanding of how things work in both countries. Select and deselect the right overlays to see only lcn (lokaal), rcn (regionaal) or ncn (nationaal) routes.
Why do you make a distinction between the routes in Belgium and the Netherlands btw? We both have exactly the same kind of cycle routes and our tagging rules are basically the same. --Eimai 12:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
On the original point, I'd be unhappy if the NCN was suppressed at high zoom levels on the main OSM cyclemap. NCN routes can be difficult to follow in built-up areas (more likelihood of damage to signs, etc.) - I now make it a rule to print out a map of each urban area before setting out on an NCN ride. If you're referring to NCN 57 along Cowley Road in this case, this is a good example - on the day I followed NCN 57 east from Oxford (mapping it as I went), the sign where it leaves the Cowley Road had been turned, meaning that I initially overshot by some way. Altering the cartography so that both sets of routes are visible would be a good solution, but not solely showing info for one set of users at the expense of another. cheers --Richard (Charlbury)

To attempt to summarise - Netherlands (and parts of Belgium and Germany too) use all three cycle network levels for "touring", with none in theory available for short-distance urban utility routes (though see Bonn area, and the two towns NE of Amsterdam - some people are mapping urban networks; some are using rcn and some using lcn). The UK (so far) uses two levels for touring (ncn/rcn) and one level for urban (lcn). My conclusion is we need a fourth network, say TCN for tours (ie what the Dutch/Belgians/Germans are officially using LCN for), to leave LCN for urban networks (I'd suggest changing the Dutch/Belgian/German tours because most are set up as relations and thus a lot easier to change). On the question of rendering, the Dutch perhaps show the lead - the cycle networks should be overlays, not part of the base. I still think there's a case for being clever at the base layer, putting all the routes in but not letting anything dominate. Then you leave it to the overlays to add the preferred emphasis. But just having NCN/RCN as an overlay that can be switched on/off would solve my original problem.--RichardMann 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And if renderers implement a fourth network tag we may consider it. Right now these three layers work nicely, and also make the tagging the same as the walking networks here, where we have exactly the same kind of networks as for cycling (nwn for national routes crossing the country, rwn for the walking node networks spanning entire regions, and lwn for small loops, usually 10-15km). But indeed there's the problem of urban networks (in Brussels for example, currently using rcn but would probably be better to use lcn, "r"cn was chosen by the person mapping them since it's the Brussels-Capital "Region" that manages the routes).
But do we really need a fourth network tag? It should be sufficient to have another tag in there so we can distinguish two networks if they both are in the same "lcn" category. And I'm sure that we have places where there are more layers necessary (the ncn routes for example can be divided into two layers in Belgium and the Netherlands). The current three layers are sufficient to give an idea about the kind of network in the international maps. Better maps can then be generated by the countries or regions themselves taking the other tags into account. --Eimai 12:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Further to the above, it isn't the case that UK NCN/RCN routes are purely touring routes. Many are also urban commuter routes: Birmingham (NCN 5 along the BCN Main Line towpath), Cardiff (NCN 8), Worcester (NCN 45) and Gloucester spring to mind. The situation in Oxford isn't necessarily the case elsewhere. --Richard 19:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Many are also quiet urban commuter routes, it's just that some are not.--RichardMann 12:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, absolutely. In my experience Cowley Road is definitely the exception rather than the rule, but then Oxford is difficult in any case due to the limited number of river crossings. --Richard 12:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom / CTC National Byways Network?

According to the CTC, "The CTC’s Byways Network is a unique resource available to members. Despite its name, the 13,000 miles of routes, covering the whole of the British Isles (including Eire) are mainly on-road. Routes have been designed to utilise, as far as practically possible, quiet scenic roads. Route Sheets explain the route verbally and give some information about places passed through. The route is described in both directions." info link. AFAIK none of the network is actually signposted, but they do sell maps of the routes. It would be nice to have an online digital version. Should it be mapped in OSM? ChrisB 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm sure the CTC recommendations are a fine resource, we should only be mapping routes which are physically signed on the ground. It's a little confusing though how similar the name is to the National Byway, which is independent of the CTC and is signed on the ground. Monxton 23:20, 28 April 2011 (BST)

Bike race routes?

It might be interesting to many to have routes of bike races marked as relations in OSM. For example, you may want to have the route on your GPS for training, or you may want to ride it even after the race itself is over. But how should these be marked and tagged? We don't want them to appear as regular bike-routes. --mok0 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

problem 1: bike races don't follow the same route each year, so would you then have a relation for each year?
problem 2: how to map them in the first place? Is there a source you're allowed to use? They're not signed like the other routes we tag. One could probably try to follow the route when the race is taking place, but that's close to impossible.
IMHO this should be held somewhere outside OSM. Unsigned and temporary routes is just something we don't map. --Eimai 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes they're marked in some way -- often chalk on the pavement (US sense). I agree otherwise with the problems you've raised (even problem 2, since they're not always marked.) --Hawke 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. ACA route network

What about the ACA route network? It seems to be distinct from the U.S. Bike Route System. ChrisB 13:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's marked on the roads; it's more like a driving route you'll get from the auto club. --NE2 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NCN RCN LCN in United States

I been mapping the County Bike routes in Santa Clara County (based on the County bike plan). The Dilemma is that there are potential four levels of Cycle routes. National (NCN), State (??), County (??), City (LCN). While the State of California does not have may state cycle routes there are ones that are multiple counties in the San Francisco bay area. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Bicycle Planning Santa Clara county has it own routes. Naturally the many of the cites have their own routes that should be LCN. This problem is partial because of California being 1.74 times the size of the United Kingdom. ~bmhr 11/12/2010

Feel free to invent a new one and document it. If you wanted to fit with the current naming scheme you could have something like network=pcn (for Provincial Cycling Network) for the State networks, and allocate County routes to network=rcn. --Richard 08:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Are there any places where these county and city systems actually overlap? It seems that it would be more beneficial for them to work together - and even if they don't, county systems would probably cover only county roads outside city limits. --NE2 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we talk about this bit: "A cycleway built to move cyclists off the main roadway on urban interstates and US routes would also qualify for a NCN route relation"? This doesn't seem right; just because a bike route corresponds to a route in the national motor vehicle network, that doesn't mean it's part of the national cycle network. A route should only be NCN if it's part of the US Bike Route System or possibly another long-distance route. --NE2 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cycle lanes on motorways?

There seems to be a rendering problem with cycle lanes on motorways. e.g. highway=motorway, bicycle=yes, cycleway=lane. The cycle lane does not show. Is there some way to raise a rendering bug? --Ebenezer 23:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to OpenCycleMap, you can add a bug report on Trac (choose the component "opencyclemap"): http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ Preferably with a link to a location with an example of the problem. Though do you really have cycle lanes on a motorway? Sounds interesting, do you have any links to photos of it? --Vclaw 01:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There's one in Miami (I guess it's debatable whether it's really a motorway, but it does meet standards west of the traffic signal): http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=25.777914,-80.16486&spn=0.002034,0.00515&t=k&z=19 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=25.77743&lon=-80.16358&zoom=16&layers=M --NE2 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's one for Sydney, Australia on the M5 Motorway (not that I'd want to ride on it). http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-33.940238,151.087632&z=20&t=k&nmd=20100916 I'll add something to trac. --Ebenezer 05:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually that one is missing bicycle=yes. I will update it and check it before submitting a ticket.
Is that a bike lane or a shoulder with sharrows? --NE2 11:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


All the Other Roads

Among all the other roads (those not part of a local or national cycle network) there are often good and bad choices. How can we tag roads to avoid and roads to prefer, if they are not part of an official network? Brycenesbitt 23:27, 12 July 2011 (BST)

What makes a good or bad choice? Tag that. Alv 08:11, 13 July 2011 (BST)

Alternative routes

In the UK, NCN routes are often improved (eg addition of a cycle path bypassing a hill etc), but the signage seems to often be left in place for all of the old route, except where it splits from the current route. I would like to suggest that these could be tagged as an alternative route (maybe ncn_ref_alt) and rendered with a dotted line (though preferebly distinct from and probably less stong than the proposed route dotted line. I would suggest they dissapear at the lowest zoom levels where a national overview is provided). I foresee several benefits to doing this:

Daveemtb 11:39, 20 July 2011 (BST)

NCN links

Sustrans encourage rangers to sign links between the proper NCN and nearby points such as train stations, universities etc. These should be signed on the ground with the route number in brackets, although sometimes are not (sadly there is a lot of inconsistency in signing across the country). These could be tagged as 'network=ncn_link, ref=XXX', or even add the additional ways into the main relation with a 'link' role. My preference is mildly towards the former option, the latter seems more elegant but a bit obscure. Any opinions on this?

For an example, see this OpenCycleMap rendering. The route is actually signed on the ground as '8', but is meant to be a link route between 8 and 82. This is how I've tagged it now, but I think it could be improved. Spark 15:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
site
Toolbox