Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

Australia mailing list
# Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)
*ACT bike routes (relations) need updating with the new nomenclature for the ACT. Australian Tagging Guidelines (ATG) needs to update too which I will draft at some stage.*
Relations in the ACT are often out of date and troublesome to update. The “signed bike path” relation in OSM belong to these “official routes” that get little attention. The nomenclature for routes in the ACT has changed. OSM ACT requires an update so that the “signed routes” relations are named correctly.
A few things need to be discussed:
- Where to get the official “signed routes”
- The ACT government is very poor at updating the signage
- Not all useful routes are official
- Are there copyright issue with sourcing routes from the Active Travel
Infrastructure Practitioner Tool?

## Where to get the official “signed routes”
The nomenclature for routes in the ACT is outlined in the document:
The Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim Planning Guideline, Transport Canberra and City Services, January 2019. (abbr. PATA)

The mapping of the routes themselves is documented in the Active Travel Routes Alignments (ATRA) available through the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool:

Yes, this is a mapping tool.
The routes can be seen on a new map “Your guide to cycling in Canberra” (release January 2019). The map is published by Transport Canberra (TCCS). The map is worth a look and can be purchased online.

## The new nomenclature in the ACT
The Active Travel Routes (ATR) consists of five route types: (PATA, page 19)
1. Community Routes for walking and cycling make up the bulk of the routes with facilities...;
2. On-Road Cycling Routes provide facilities to cater to the transport, fitness and recreational needs of a subset of generally fitter and faster cyclists comfortable riding on the roadway;
3. Accessible Pedestrian Routes identify the essential walking and wheelchair access routes to cater specifically for the needs of people with visual or mobility impairments;
4. Recreational Routes are those routes that include trails and paths specially developed for recreational and tourist purposes, for example, the Canberra Centenary Trail (CCT) and Lake Circuits (e.g. LBG); and
5. Equestrian Routes identify the alignments of the trails and corridors for equestrian use including the Bicentennial National Trail (BNT).

It is the Community Routes that are interesting for the cyclists and are ranked as we do with roads (motorway, trunk, primary, etc). But the names are different: principal, main, local and access. I think it only necessary to create relations for the first two types. Examples of the numbering nomenclature are provided.
Community Routes (PATA, page 22)
- Principal Community Routes (PCRs) Numbered M100, M200 etc to M900
- Main Community Routes (MCRs) Numbered M110, M120 etc. to M990
- Local Community Routes (LCRs)
- Access Community Routes (ACRs)

## Updating the signage
The ACT Government is very slow to provide adequate signage and just as bad at updating it. The lack of due diligence by the ACT Government means that the signage may be inconsistent for a decade.
The “what’s there” OSM verification test fails in this case for signage. Whats there is often wrong and ignored. Many cycle groups in the ACT are lobbing the ACT Government to fix. A better approach would be to label the routes using the official nomenclature. This is what I propose here.

## Unofficial routes
ACT OSM has quite a few unofficial routes. This makes sense. If the ACT Government does not build many new bike paths. There are often gaps in the network (missing links) and official routes end suddenly. To ride anywhere requires the use of unofficial routes. The OSM mappers have simply documented what is common practice. The unofficial routes may include back streets or footpaths, and paved paths across parks and along lanes between houses. The last two are common in Canberra suburbs. You will find unofficial routes in the ACT crossing straight across suburbs and connecting high schools with adjacent suburbs. All very practical.
This should be encouraged as it is useful for day-to-day cycling and routing, and secondly, documents common practice. It should also prove useful for cycling advocacy in Canberra.

## Sourcing data from the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool
Copyright is an issue with OSM (or so I have been told) and is being investigated in this case. Feel welcome to give me tips on how to go about this. Inquiries are ongoing.

I welcome your comments.
keyword: Australia, ACT, routes, relations, ACT Government, active travel, Community Routes, CCT, BNT, ATR, TCCS

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

Phil Wyatt

Hi there Herbert.Remi,

 

These rants are starting to look like the work of a troll. Can I suggest in the next ‘Discussion’ you give us your OSM name so we can study your contribution to the project in a meaningful way. Your lack of response to any emails is concerning.

 

No response will indicate you are just trolling the mailing list and I will seek to have you removed.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Herbert.Remi via Talk-au [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2019 12:49 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [talk-au] Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

 

# Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

*ACT bike routes (relations) need updating with the new nomenclature for the ACT. Australian Tagging Guidelines (ATG) needs to update too which I will draft at some stage.*

Relations in the ACT are often out of date and troublesome to update. The “signed bike path” relation in OSM belong to these “official routes” that get little attention. The nomenclature for routes in the ACT has changed. OSM ACT requires an update so that the “signed routes” relations are named correctly.

A few things need to be discussed:

- Where to get the official “signed routes”

- The ACT government is very poor at updating the signage

- Not all useful routes are official

- Are there copyright issue with sourcing routes from the Active Travel

Infrastructure Practitioner Tool?

 

## Where to get the official “signed routes”

The nomenclature for routes in the ACT is outlined in the document:

The Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim Planning Guideline, Transport Canberra and City Services, January 2019. (abbr. PATA)

 

The mapping of the routes themselves is documented in the Active Travel Routes Alignments (ATRA) available through the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool:

 

Yes, this is a mapping tool.

The routes can be seen on a new map “Your guide to cycling in Canberra” (release January 2019). The map is published by Transport Canberra (TCCS). The map is worth a look and can be purchased online.

 

## The new nomenclature in the ACT

The Active Travel Routes (ATR) consists of five route types: (PATA, page 19)

1. Community Routes for walking and cycling make up the bulk of the routes with facilities...;

2. On-Road Cycling Routes provide facilities to cater to the transport, fitness and recreational needs of a subset of generally fitter and faster cyclists comfortable riding on the roadway;

3. Accessible Pedestrian Routes identify the essential walking and wheelchair access routes to cater specifically for the needs of people with visual or mobility impairments;

4. Recreational Routes are those routes that include trails and paths specially developed for recreational and tourist purposes, for example, the Canberra Centenary Trail (CCT) and Lake Circuits (e.g. LBG); and

5. Equestrian Routes identify the alignments of the trails and corridors for equestrian use including the Bicentennial National Trail (BNT).

 

It is the Community Routes that are interesting for the cyclists and are ranked as we do with roads (motorway, trunk, primary, etc). But the names are different: principal, main, local and access. I think it only necessary to create relations for the first two types. Examples of the numbering nomenclature are provided.

Community Routes (PATA, page 22)

- Principal Community Routes (PCRs) Numbered M100, M200 etc to M900

- Main Community Routes (MCRs) Numbered M110, M120 etc. to M990

- Local Community Routes (LCRs)

- Access Community Routes (ACRs)

 

## Updating the signage

The ACT Government is very slow to provide adequate signage and just as bad at updating it. The lack of due diligence by the ACT Government means that the signage may be inconsistent for a decade.

The “what’s there” OSM verification test fails in this case for signage. Whats there is often wrong and ignored. Many cycle groups in the ACT are lobbing the ACT Government to fix. A better approach would be to label the routes using the official nomenclature. This is what I propose here.

 

## Unofficial routes

ACT OSM has quite a few unofficial routes. This makes sense. If the ACT Government does not build many new bike paths. There are often gaps in the network (missing links) and official routes end suddenly. To ride anywhere requires the use of unofficial routes. The OSM mappers have simply documented what is common practice. The unofficial routes may include back streets or footpaths, and paved paths across parks and along lanes between houses. The last two are common in Canberra suburbs. You will find unofficial routes in the ACT crossing straight across suburbs and connecting high schools with adjacent suburbs. All very practical.

This should be encouraged as it is useful for day-to-day cycling and routing, and secondly, documents common practice. It should also prove useful for cycling advocacy in Canberra.

 

## Sourcing data from the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool

Copyright is an issue with OSM (or so I have been told) and is being investigated in this case. Feel welcome to give me tips on how to go about this. Inquiries are ongoing.

 

I welcome your comments.

keyword: Australia, ACT, routes, relations, ACT Government, active travel, Community Routes, CCT, BNT, ATR, TCCS


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion G: nomenclature for routes in the ACT (relations)

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Australia mailing list



1 Oct 2019, 04:49 by [hidden email]:
# Discussion G
Given that you are not responding to
any messages I would advice you to

- stop posting new threads
- learn how mailing lists are used
- map something in OSM
- post smaller and more clear message,
and respond to comments. Posting
yet another thread is not a response.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au