Changeset: 11479325
Added suggested cycle routes from RTA distributed map "Northern Sydney Cycle Map" ( www.bikenorth.org.au )
Closed by efAston
Tags
build | 2.3-380-gd20f3c8 |
---|---|
created_by | Potlatch 2 |
version | 2.3 |
Discussion
-
Comment from aharvey
I know it's been 5 years but in line with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice I have a few issues with this.
1. "Unmarked Suggested Bike Route" if it's unmarked on the ground and only a suggested route according to the website you linked to, then it doesn't belong in OSM.
2. source=www.bikenorth.org.au. That map is copyright and OSM doesn't have permission to use. If this is not the case could you please point me to documentation of license/permission?
So based on this I'm starting to remove these where I've done a ground survey on Mapillary and can confirm there is no infrastructure or signposted routes.
-
Comment from efAston
These suggested bike routes are useless anyway, they're actually worth avoiding (the NSW RTA hates cyclists and just wants them out of the way, they don't care whether the road is actually suitable for riding or not).
The problem with mapping cycle routes in NSW is that a lot of the cycle routes only exist on paper. There are shared paths on RTA official cycle maps which aren't sign-posted (for example, Pitt st and Argyle st Parramatta). This means the RTA cycle map is the only place where a legally defined cycle facility is declared, so as a cyclist, you're sometimes completely dependent on RTA cycle maps for where you are legally allowed to use the footpaths.
The suggested cycle routes on the other hand are useless, I'm pretty sure someone commented that these were to be removed a couple of years ago.
-
Comment from aharvey
I concur, it's better for bicycle routing engines using OSM to favour actual infrastructure over routes because the presence of a route says nothing about the infrastructure present or it's suitability. That said, route actually marked still should have some weight since they can be easier to follow/navigate through due to the signage.
I'm finding a lot of routes are marked out eg. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-33.8071108611168&lng=151.20884280554696&z=17&panos=true&pKey=IFvDJTUmGb9mnMjrXe70Ag&focus=photo&x=0.5568584308144718&y=0.5578228919081532&zoom=1.6065056290744557
If it's marked as a shared path on the RMS map, but not on the ground, I would have thought you still can't ride on the footpath there...?
The only ways left in this relation now are mostly unconnected short segments so based on what you've said and what I'm seeing on the ground for the other ones I just removed, I'll remove the rest.
- Roseville Avenue (161867484), v1
- Archbold Road (161867485), v1
- Lord Street (161867487), v1
- Bancroft Avenue (161867489), v1
- Roseville Avenue (161867491), v1
- Babbage Road (161867492), v1
- Archbold Road (161867495), v1
- Lord Street (161867497), v1
- Roseville Avenue (4663473), v7
- Lord Street (4663471), v6
- Allan Street (25502617), v5
4663466, v7- Babbage Road (161867018), v1
- Babbage Road (161867019), v1
- Warrane Road (161867020), v1
- Altona Avenue (161867021), v1
- Altona Avenue (161867022), v1
- Ferguson Street (161867023), v1
- Ferguson Street (161867024), v1
- Keldie Street (161867025), v1
Relations (6)
- North Sydney "Suggested Unmarked Bike Route" (2167613), v1
- North Sydney "Suggested Unmarked Bike Route" (2167613), v2
- North Sydney "Suggested Unmarked Bike Route" (2167613), v4
540232, v9540232, v10- North Sydney "Suggested Unmarked Bike Route" (2167613), v3
Nodes (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |