Talk:WikiProject United Kingdom London Cycle Network
LCN route numbers in a state of flux?
Is it just me, or are the London Cycle Network route numbers in a permanent state of flux?
The cycle track that passes my road is known as one of the following:
1, 6 or 85. 1 according to a map on an information board. 85 according to a London Cycle Network sign at Staples Corner, showing a primary destination of Barnet. 6 according to the LCN+ route maps.
According to the London Cycle Network web site, apparently routes were being renumbered a few years ago, and there's no obvious result of whether the renumbering decisions have been completed yet.
That said, I wouldn't trust the LCN+ web maps for directions. They've sent me along many a route that has plenty of "no cycling" signs up.
Welshie 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Should all cycleways be tagged lcn=yes?
In London I've come across a few different kinds of cycleways that don't consistely appear tagged and I'm not certain whether they should.
- signed routes with numbers (e.g. ) or destinations (e.g. West End 2 miles)
- routes signed with rectangular blue bicycle signs (possibly including mandatory cycle lane or contraflow signage)
- routes with circular bicycle signs, big ones in intersections, small ones on bollards and such
- cycle lanes and tracks, bicycle signs painted on the road
- bicycle signs painted on the road
- bus lanes signed for cycles as well (guess that's all of them)
- signed directions to a (numbered) cycle route
I think obviously 1) is lcn=yes, but for the rest it could be argued both ways, and maybe even depends on location. My impression is that in London all ways explicitly marked for bicycles one way or another ways are part of the cycling network whereas in Finland majority of pedestrian paths are also cycle paths and you'd only tag signed routes.
--Tko 12:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was wondering about the same thing while cycling in London. To my knowledge rectangular cycling signs are "advisory" (with no provisions) whereas the round shaped ones mark paths dedicated to cyclists. Therefore I'd say the circular bicycle signs should be tagged with "lcn=yes" and the rectangular ones with "lcn=yes" with possibly "state=advisory" Thoughts? -- Tilusnet 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that rectangular signs are mainly for cars to highlight assigned lane usage, e.g. left lane must turn left and right must go straight on, or one way with cycle contraflow, or car lane with mandatory (or advisory) cycle lane, or common lane shared with cycles. Circular signs just say "no cars". I get the feeling shared or dedicated cyclepaths (round signs) are mostly just in places like parks and thus less likely to all be part of cycling network. OTOH cycle lanes usually feel more like part of a network getting you somewhere. --Tko 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Following is my understanding of how certain cycleways should be tagged. I think lane/opposite_lane/track/lcn_ref/ncn_ref are clear and the ambiguous ones are recommended routes, bus lanes and lcn=yes. --Tko 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
|Cycles on the road with other traffic|
| Route recommended for cyclists on the main carriageway of a road.
I'm not completely certain, but these markings (sometimes they look like cycle lane markings without the line separating the lanes) also seem to be used to reinforce cycle routes between destination signposts. Shouldn't they be lcn=yes or do you need the sign with explicit lcn too?
| With-flow cycle lane
Or does this even apply to advisory cycle lanes since they have no special meaning really as you can drive and park your car there freely?
| With-flow bus lane for cycles (and taxis)
|Contra-flow cycle lane|
| Cycle track
Note: currently not rendered in OpenCycleMap 
|London/National Cycle Network|
| London Cycle Network routes (unnumbered)
The other sign doesn't explicitly say "London Cycle Network" so it's basically just a sign with bicycle on it (just like the recommended route one) - is such route part of LCN or not?
| London Cycle Network routes (numbered)
Note: it is preferred to add the ways to the relation with lcn_ref=* tag rather than tagging the ways directly.
Sidenote: should the relation be named "38" (gets bit mixed with bus routes), "LCN 38" or "London Cycle Network Route 38" (most correct I'd think, but annoyingly verbose)
| National Cycle Network routes
renaming to shorter title
The page is currently called "WikiProject United Kingdom London Cycle Network". I've been renaming a load of UK related wiki pages which unnecessarily use the "WikiProject" prefix (see Talk:WikiProject United Kingdom#renaming the "WikiProject" pages). But this page is has an even more unnecessarily long name at the moment . I think it can be just "London Cycle Network" -- Harry Wood (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)