Tweaks to LoS section

[Robinlovelace]

• [x] #196
  • To Cycling by design compliance
• [x] New colourscheme: red, amber, green. It's useful to have the additional category for "Unsuitable for cycling", and "Unsuitable" in the legend
• We need some way to separate out the data, maybe involving filtering out the majority of residential roads?
• [x] Info popup with link to Cycling by Design guidance doc in https://github.com/nptscot/npt/issues/324
• [x] Traffic volumes breaks: 0-1999, 2000-3999, 4000+
• [x] Update colourscheme

Regarding the Cycle Infrastructure layer:

• [x] Rename heading to Cycle infrastructure
• [x] New levels: Cycle lane (painted), Light segregation, Stepped or footway, to be renamed as
  • Separated cycle track [meaning separated from motor traffic and not alongside a major road]
  • Roadside infrastructure [Info popup: Infrastructure including separated cycle track and shared pedestrian and cycling track, not paint]
  • Cycle lane on carriageway (painted)
  • No infrastructure mixed with motor traffic

[Robinlovelace]

At present we don't differentiate between shared use vs dedicated cycleways: https://github.com/nptscot/osmactive/blob/main/R/osmactive.R from that:

      segregated == "yes" ~ "Stepped or footway",
      segregated == "no" ~ "Stepped or footway",

[joeytalbot]

Traffic volumes breaks: 0-1999, 2000-3999, 4000+

1000 is also an important break point

[mvl22]

Traffic volumes display updated:

I've used a slightly darker yellow as the current one was not very visible.

[mvl22]

1000 is also an important break point

This was discussed on the call and it was felt it should not be added, as it would imply the complete correctness of values, which would be problematic for say 900-1100.

[mvl22]

Cycle Infrastructure layer: Rename heading to Physical cycle infrastructure

Updated in 8b16d60ef52dda2b70276233ec89151d6997bb2e.

What is to be done with the 'Existing infrastructure (baseline)' layer, which seems to overlap?

New levels: Cycle lane (painted), Light segregation, Stepped or footway, to be renamed as

• Separated cycle track [meaning separated from motor traffic and not alongside a major road]
• Roadside infrastructure [Info popup: Infrastructure including separated cycle track and shared pedestrian and cycling track, not paint]
• Cycle lane on carriageway (painted)
• No infrastructure mixed with motor traffic

Categories updated in 26bd1787b04dfda6ad16f1529bb7290504ff9c91.

Let me know when the dataset has been updated to change from these old three categories, to the new four categories, so we can test the new colour scheme.

[mvl22]

Cycling by design compliance New colourscheme: red, amber, green

Updated in be588a98b1a9fcc5191006081cdfd5f21abfa71e.

It's useful to have the additional category for "Unsuitable for cycling", and "Unsuitable" in the legend

Currently needs to be updated in the data as the labels match against the data.

[mvl22]

OSM IDs now hyperlinked, in 09b8ff86eab29131431499f267de6cb25ce5ff12:

[mvl22]

Have reordered the popup to show a more logic order, and added in units, in 922396f797c6db41d00098c6911efc75d44ef6f5.

Please check the units are correct.

[mvl22]

link to Cycling by Design guidance doc

Link added in eb0205585923bf2f457cc518d0dabc8dea2e85dc.

[mvl22]

Info popup with link to Cycling by Design guidance doc in https://github.com/nptscot/npt/issues/324

Info popup added in 2bf4d8c4e5bfeb0565ae7270f9431f8e0543048a. Obviously please review and update the text in manual/index.md:

[mvl22]

Cycling by design compliance We need some way to separate out the data, maybe involving filtering out the majority of residential roads?

Basically if you can dump into the data a new field which specifies if the Way is a main road* or not, I can then theoretically style the non-main roads thinner than the main roads.

• (motorway/trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary, and motorway_link/trunk_link/primary_link/secondary_link/tertiary_link)

[Robinlovelace]

1000 is also an important break point

This was discussed on the call and it was felt it should not be added, as it would imply the complete correctness of values, which would be problematic for say 900-1100.

:+1:

[Robinlovelace]

Great work on this Martin, will get back with more info soon...

[mvl22]

Perhaps you could tick off above the tasks you accept are completed.

[Robinlovelace]

Perhaps you could tick off above the tasks you accept are completed.

Done

[Robinlovelace]

The Cycle infrastructure (better name than Physical cycle infrastructure on the basis of keep it simple and raises the question of Metaphorical cycle infra :confused: ) needs a bit of works, this is where the highway tag can come in. However, the legend is in a weird order, and the legend headings are not right, right? I think maybe we need some upstream changes on the backend + data side on this one:

[Robinlovelace]

Source: https://nptscot.github.io/#/clos/#11.6/56.4711/-2.912

[mvl22]

The legend heading order is defined in the datasets definition: https://github.com/nptscot/nptscot.github.io/blob/dev/src/datasets.js#L235-L238

Feel free to re-order them, or if you have updated data, update the list to have the new values.

The values are those you sent me in the data. At present there is no support to define translation of data value names to different UI labels. But the data ought to be made correct anyway.

[Robinlovelace]

The legend heading order is defined in the datasets definition: https://github.com/nptscot/nptscot.github.io/blob/dev/src/datasets.js#L235-L238

Feel free to re-order them, or if you have updated data, update the list to have the new values.

The values are those you sent me in the data. At present there is no support to define translation of data value names to different UI labels. But the data ought to be made correct anyway.

OK, will update the data.

[Robinlovelace]

Fix incoming upstream: https://github.com/nptscot/osmactive/issues/46

[Robinlovelace]

New labels looking good to me from upstream repo. Heads-up @mvl22 we do want to add On carriageway cycle lane, right?

[Robinlovelace]

Cycle lane on carriageway, rather. Yes we need that I think.

[Robinlovelace]

And with new label:

[mvl22]

Yes, that seems to me a sensible category to include.

[joeytalbot]

Have reordered the popup to show a more logic order, and added in units, in 922396f.

Please check the units are correct.

Is it worth changing the label to "Estimated traffic volume" as these are estimates?

[joeytalbot]

I would also change "Speed limit" to "Speed limit (assumed)"

[Robinlovelace]

Is it worth changing the label to "Estimated traffic volume" as these are estimates?

Big :+1: to that and cc @mvl22

[mvl22]

I would also change "Speed limit" to "Speed limit (assumed)"

I thought the speed limits come from OSM where the data is present? Does that mean that some streets are known and others are assumed?

[Robinlovelace]

I thought the speed limits come from OSM where the data is present? Does that mean that some streets are known and others are assumed?

Correct. I think just "Speed limite" with more info in the i "Further info" button is fine. Same approach fine for volumes too:

Short label, details in description.