Update categories after convo with Angus

[Robinlovelace]

This is working great, have just noticed that Headingley Lane is incorrectly labelled as painted lane (should be Segregated track)

[Robinlovelace]

Latest colours: below.

[mvl22]

These look a much more understandable set of provision types.

I'm surprised that off-road comes out as the shortest length - I would have thought this actually swamps the other types because of links between areas. Or is that because these are not seen as dedicated provision?

It might be worth setting the off-road type as a completely different colour. The other four form an approximate grading from good-to-bad (though one might argue that shared-use is often worse than a painted lane), whereas an off-road track between areas is functionally different - often a cut-through or route between areas.

[Robinlovelace]

These look a much more understandable set of provision types.

Great.

[Robinlovelace]

I'm surprised that off-road comes out as the shortest length - I would have thought this actually swamps the other types because of links between areas. Or is that because these are not seen as dedicated provision?

Many are now Shared Use, e.g. Goldenacre Path look it up online, it's like this, indeed shared, but checking with Angus if it should be amber colour, do you have any thoughts/preferences @mvl22 ?

[Robinlovelace]

Note: the lengths are not real, it's just a visualisation (the even spacing should be a hint)!

[Robinlovelace]

It might be worth setting the off-road type as a completely different colour. The other four form an approximate grading from good-to-bad (though one might argue that shared-use is often worse than a painted lane), whereas an off-road track between areas is functionally different - often a cut-through or route between areas.

We could make it darker green so it's close to black. However, dark green is good if we're only including good stuff, only segregated=yes goes in for now. So default: keep it as is.

[Robinlovelace]

In your code, I would apply segregation and its variants only to things marked with cycleway=track as that is the only context in which it should be used.

This is getting into the weeds and edge-cases. Let's get the high level stuff first and revisit.

@mvl22 can you create a clearly documented issue with test case + expectation of category so we don't forget this?

[mvl22]

Many are now Shared Use, e.g. Goldenacre Path look it up online, it's like this, indeed shared, but checking with Angus if it should be amber colour, do you have any thoughts/preferences @mvl22 ?

OK, I think it would be good to clarify now then what exactly the difference is between shared-use and off-road, as off-road will almost always be shared-use. That image seems to show off-road, i.e. the old away from road type, as there is no road visible.

[Robinlovelace]

Many are now Shared Use, e.g. Goldenacre Path look it up online, it's like this, indeed shared, but checking with Angus if it should be amber colour, do you have any thoughts/preferences @mvl22 ?

OK, I think it would be good to clarify now then what exactly the difference is between shared-use and off-road, as off-road will almost always be shared-use. That image seems to show off-road, i.e. the old away from road type, as there is no road visible.

Current spec that I've tried to implement: Shared Use is anything shared, segretion=yes or no, unless it's an Off-road track, in which case segregation=yes is enough to bump it up to the status of an Off-road track.

Does that make sense and sound reasonable?

Not 100% the implementation is correct but believe so having checked a few places.

[mvl22]

This is getting into the weeds and edge-cases. Let's get the high level stuff first and revisit.

@mvl22 can you create a clearly documented issue with test case + expectation of category so we don't forget this?

Yes, it's certainly a more minor matter, but stuck out as I was reviewing this.

Issue created at #61 so this is not lost.

[Robinlovelace]

Update: off road shared use should be Off Road. Wonder if there's a way to differentiate between good and bad. Cycleway should be enough to justify Off-road Track it seems from Angus.

[Robinlovelace]

This is now complete I think. @mvl22 I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look at the results for London here and let me know of any issues you spot: https://github.com/nptscot/osmactive/releases

[Robinlovelace]

Shared use footpaths being missed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306849934

[mvl22]

Yes, you need to include highway=footway, bicycle=yes as well as highway=bicycle, foot=yes.

The former implies pedestrian infrastructure that cyclists are permitted to use, i.e. worse quality shared-use. The latter implies a constructed cycleway that pedestrians are permitted to use.

[mvl22]

I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look at the results for London here

Thanks; I see this includes Cambridge now.

The results look broadly correct to me. No doubt we will find oddities and incremental improvements, but this seems to pass the 'good enough' test for now.

Quite a few of the red lines are actually contraflows. In that scenario, paint is often acceptable and normal, since a contraflow is really just an ordinary two-way road on which one side of the road motor vehicles are prohibited. Example is Downing Street. Whilst one could argue that segregation would improve these, one does not normally have segregation between two sides of a road in a non-contraflow situation. Not sure whether the client would want these shown, or perhaps as a different category since their underlying purpose is different to a general cycle lane/track.

Paths across Midsummer Common are inconsistently off-road or shared-use. In this case they are both off-road and shared-use. Again I think this off-road categorisation is a bit arbitrary and will lead to this kind of confusion/inconsistency quite a bit. If the intention is routes between areas, I would set a considerable minimum length.