Transform Oxford
James Styring
| Facts wanted over road plans http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/4056760.Facts_wanted_over_road_plans/ 6:30am Monday 19th January 2009 Comments (3) Have your say » By George Hamilton » Road users and pedestrians are desperate to pin down county planners and find out the extent of radical proposals to pedestrianise large swathes of Oxford city centre. Oxfordshire County Council’s Transform Oxford plans are set to start during the summer in Queen Street, although no one knows exactly when or how much the project will cost. The relocation of bus stops, provision for disabled drivers and a new bus interchange have worried people affected by the plans. The scheme would see large chunks of the city centre — including Queen Street, Magdalen Street and part of George Street — ripped up and pedestrianised by 2011. The number of buses in the city centre would be reduced. They would possibly be replaced with larger shuttle buses from a new bus interchange. But user groups say they think there has been a lack of detail released and so the Oxford Mail put their concerns and questions to county transport chief Ian Hudspeth to answer. He said the move would attract more people into the city centre and encourage them to stay for longer, benefiting the economy. Mr Hudspeth stressed Transform Oxford was a vision and more details would emerge later. He said: “This is a vision for improving the centre of Oxford and we are building up the full plan and listening to people at the moment. “I do think generally there is a lot of support. People like it.” Oxford City Council leader Bob Price said: “We are fully supportive of the view the city centre should be made more pedestrian-friendly. “But we find it very frustrating the county council has been so reluctant to provide more details about the scheme.” Mr Hudspeth said a final cost for Transform Oxford would be determined following a consultation period. Paul Cullen, chairman of the Oxford Pedestrians’ Association, said: “We are very much behind the overall proposal, but there is a lot of detail that needs to be thrashed out. For example, the consultation document talks about pedestrianisation but it doesn’t really talk about what that means. In some places access for loading to business may mean you can’t have a 100 per cent vehicle-free street.” Mr Hudspeth said: “We are listening to people and we are taking on board their views to ensure we get the best for Oxford.” Ben Lloyd, senior director of 200-year-old auction house Mallams in St Michael’s Street, said he feared he may be forced to move if customers could not collect furniture from the doors of his business. He said: “If George Street was completely pedestrianised with no vehicular access from 10am to 6pm — similar to Cornmarket at the moment — quite simply we would have to move. “There is no way we could run our business on those lines. It is essential to have vehicular access day-to-day. “If not we would have to completely rethink our business practise. “I really can’t see how that could work.” Mr Hudspeth said: “We will talk to all businesses and look at their concerns and see whether there would be an ability, similar to Cornmarket Street, where there are deliveries at certain times.” Noam Bleicher has been a campaigner for bus users in Oxford for six years. Mr Bleicher said he feared passengers travelling from the east of the city would be worse off if a bus station was created at The Plain. He added: “It would be nowhere near as convenient as having a direct service into the city. It may cost more, it will certainly take longer and it is less convenient.” Mr Hudspeth said the plan to create a bus interchange at The Plain was an option being considered, but was not definitely going to happen. David Clinkard has been a taxi driver in Oxford for nearly 30 years. He is self-employed. Mr Clinkard said: “I don’t think it’s going to improve anything at all. If they are going to use Beaumont Street from the north it’s going to be a no-go. I think it will make it more awkward for the elderly and disabled. “It will mean more and more people stay away from Oxford. I just hope they have got it right.” Alan Woodward, secretary of City of Oxford Licensed Taxi Cab Association, declined to comment ahead of two meetings he has organised with the county council. Mr Hudspeth said: “The taxi rank will still be there — it is not the whole of George Street that is being pedestrianised. I can understand their concerns. But the whole issue of the vision is to improve the city centre of Oxford, to make it a better destination to come and visit.” Martin Sutton, managing director of Stagecoach in Oxfordshire, said: “We are generally very supportive of the vision and the objectives in terms of trying to make the city centre as attractive as possible. “However, there are an awful lot of people who access Oxford city centre by bus. “It is absolutely vital for people to be able to get to where they want to go in the city centre as conveniently as possible. “One of the big issues is the suggestion there should be a bus interchange at The Plain. “If that were to happen it would switch people off in a big way.” Philip Kirk, managing director of Oxford Bus Company, was unavailable for interview, but released a short statement. It read: “We are engaged in very useful discussions with the county council. We understand the objectives they have and they have acknowledged our concerns about the importance of an attractive bus network to the continued economic viability of Oxford.” Mr Hudspeth said: “We are working with the bus companies to ensure we get it right before anything is implemented. “I take on board his comments about The Plain. That is one option. It is not a certainty.” James Styring, chairman of campaign group Cyclox, backed plans to close Queen Street, Magadalen Street and George Street to traffic — but said he wanted the county council to ensure cyclists could use all city centre streets under the new plans. He also called for an end to the daytime ban of cyclists through Queen Street. Mr Styring said: “It’s exciting a pedestrian-friendly vision for Oxford is at long last emerging. “But Transform Oxford must not present barriers to the 20,000 plus cyclists without whom Oxford’s transport network would collapse.” Mr Hudspeth said: “I have an on-going dialogue with Cyclox and I’m taking their views. All groups will be taken into consideration. It might be there is some shared space in locations.” Gwyn Huish, chairman of Transport For All, said his members were concerned about the relocation of Queen Street bus stops and disabled parking spaces. Mr Huish said: “The county council said it wants access for all, but we are not convinced they have considered disabled or disadvantaged people. “I was talking to one woman, a scooter user, who is very concerned that Oxford could become a no go area for her. There is also a lot of concern about moving the bus stops out of Queen Street. There is no real detail about where the bus stops may go to. The proposals don’t appear to have been totally thought out.” Mr Hudspeth said: “There is no motion to reduce the number of disabled parking spaces.” But he could not confirm where the spaces would be relocated to. “Mothers with buggies in Queen Street and people with wheelchairs will prefer pedestrianisation because it will make it more comfortable for people with disabilites to get around.” |
gps...@brookes.ac.uk
As we try to thrash out what is the best approach to cycle infrastructure
provision, this article from Local Transport Today pops up. Gary Cummins,
who was a London Cycling Campaign Borough co-odinator in Tower Hamlets
from 1994-2000, claims that the traditional cries made by both
non-cyclists and also cyclists, for lanes and tracks, are not necessarily
the best way forward. The article explains the policies followed by
London Boro of Hackney which "has one of the fastest growing rates of
cycling anywhere in the UK". You may not be surprised to find they
diverge diametrically from the County Council approach. I note that
'permeability for cycling' is one of the key elements.
http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=14532
So he lists: -
(1) a comprehensive cycle-training programme,
(2) lower motor traffic speeds,
(3) easy direct travel from A - B by bike,
(4) general acceptance that we can share highway space,
- and that the DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) - hierachy of
provision for cyclists, are interventions to consider first.
Enjoyable, and there is a remarkably sane letter with a provocative title,
from M Wardlaw: - 'Advocates of cycle helmets are ignorantand/or
incompetent',
http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/opinion/?id=14534
ATB,
Graham
Graham
dan....@bt.com
For those who aren't registered with this august publication, please find the full article.
Hackney shows you don't have to have lots of cycling infrastructure to get more people on bikes
Gary Cummins - JMPGary Cummins - JMP <https://mail.bt.com/files/3442-l.jpg>
By Gary Cummins
The London Borough of Hackney has one of the fastest growth rates of cycling anywhere in the UK, yet planners and transport professionals visiting this borough with a view to imitating its success on their own turf may be surprised to see little in the way of conspicuous cycle facilities. Danish-style cycle tracks are nowhere to be found and the 1,000-strong local cyclists group, the London Cycling Campaign in Hackney, actively lobbies against the installation of cycle lanes.
That the penny has dropped regarding cycling as transport in London is well known but the reasons behind this success story are less clear, often being (incorrectly) put down to the development of a comprehensive network of segregated cycle routes. Attend any transport conference with a speaker endorsing the success of London and chances are they will present a slide of a London Cycle Network + (LCN+) route showing a section of segregation in Bloomsbury. Certainly some segregation within the LCN+ does exist but these sections account for only a tiny proportion of that network; probably amounting to not even one percent of the total. Outside of the occasional section of pedestrian-cyclist segregation in local parks there are few cycle lanes or tracks in Hackney itself, where the cycling modal share is ten percent and rising.
Of all the London Cycling Campaign borough groups, Hackney's is the largest. It has benefited from a longstanding and consistent core of activists creating a mature and confident lobby group that speaks with some authority on what it believes to be the key issues behind the success of the bicycle as transport in this part of London.
Like many success stories, it is due to a combination of factors. These include: the congestion charge; a positive press reaction to the increase in cycle use; the free TfL London Cycle Guide maps and better bus lanes. Along with this there is peer observation (the general 'fashionableness' of cycling in London) and the cycling lobby developing a trusting and respectful relationship with local authority officers.
However, there are other factors that may be less familiar to a visiting planner: 'permeability' and what Hackney's cyclists call 'invisible engineering'.
Local cyclists describe permeability as 'maximum route choice with minimum diversion'. For cyclists the bicycle performs best when it is used to travel as directly as possible to the desired destination. Diversions are a waste of time and energy. For a commuter with a four-five mile journey the occasional detour may be acceptable but a journey that involves travelling around three sides of a square to avoid a priority junction becomes unnecessarily tiresome.
According to Trevor Parsons, the co-ordinator of the London Cycling Campaign in Hackney, the restoration of permeability to non-motor traffic through parts of the borough, along with engineering measures to reduce traffic speeds, have been among the most influential physical interventions carried out. By their nature these measures are almost undetectable to anybody seeking out what might be termed 'typical' cycle facilities. Rather, Hackney's cyclists and their borough officers have developed a consensus that seeks to avoid what they consider to be tokenistic, and in the long-term potentially harmful, engineering solutions such as cycle lanes and tracks. Instead they have implemented measures that seek to reduce motor traffic speeds, restore cycle permeability to sections of the borough where this had been lost (principally to egregious one-way systems), operate a comprehensive programme of cycle training and support a general acceptance for people's right to cycle on the highway.
Hackney has hardly any green painted cycle lanes and the few dedicated segregated cycle tracks that do exist tend to be there to facilitate cycle access where other motor traffic is not permitted, for example restoring permeability via a cycle contra-flow along a previously barred one-way street.
The restoration of two-way working to the Shoreditch Gyratory, a formerly inner city triangle that stifled non-motorised traffic movement across the borough, has seen permeable access restored. It may be argued that this has assisted ongoing economic development to this previously unfashionable part of the city. Hackney alone is now home to 12 bicycle shops, where in recent years there were only three or four, which says something about the potential economic impact that promotion of cycling as transport can bring to an area.
Conduct a survey on what most non-cycling people want before they will consider riding a bike and this list is likely to include cycle lanes, green paint and segregated cycle tracks. But ask Mr Parsons and other members of his group in Hackney and the list will be quite different. It will involve offering a comprehensive cycle training programme, lower motor traffic speeds, easy direct travel from A to B by bike and general acceptance that we can share highway space.
Within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges the hierarchy of provision for cyclists places traffic reduction, speed reduction and redistribution of the carriageway via bus lanes and wide nearside lanes among the interventions to consider first when developing infrastructure for cyclists. The large increase in bicycle use within Hackney demonstrates that, when thoughtfully implemented with other complimentary measures, this hierarchy works extremely well.
Dan Levy BT Financing Solutions +44 (0) 20 7876 8494
________________________________
gps...@brookes.ac.uk
Apologies for overlooking limited access to the article I offered a link
to, and thanks to Dan for the full text.
I attach a file and copied below (but formatting lost), from the London
Cycling Benchmarking Project Report: July 2008, page 35 of 70. What order
of preference would you think for the issues in Oxford? What different
issues would you add?
Graham
APPENDIX 3: TOP 20 ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT THE START UP WORKSHOP
The list of issues was compiled and prioritised by the participants at the
Start Up Workshop in November 2006.
ISSUES RATING*
• Good staff resources for cycling matters 14
• Political support and ways to increase it 13
• Political involvement including at senior management level in the council
• Getting councillors to change from an “old-school road safety approach”
to a 10
Road Danger Reduction approach
• Got [sic] policy acceptance that helmets are not important(and so there
is no need for
them to be compulsory)
• Testing ideas from abroad 9
• Is there anything genuinely good?
• Enforced compromises
• Co-operation from rail operators 9
• Effective monitoring and evaluation of cycle facilities /network 9
• What cycle monitoring do TfL want?
• What outcome monitoring is done by the boroughs and can this usefully be
linked
together – pan London picture?
• Opposition or support from other officers 7
• Addressing cycle theft 7
• Low cost quick ways to provide space for cyclists on principal roads 6
• How to integrate high cycling priority into every scheme in every
relevant department 6
(e.g. traffic management, housing crime, health, etc)
• Environmental benefits of cycling quantified 5
• How to measure how well marketing , promotional and educational schemes
work 5 (outcomes)
• How others do training? 5
- Own scheme / National Standards?
- In house? / Out source? / Admin processes / Best value
• Transformed the culture within Transport and Highways from one that is
against 4
cycling to one that is for cycling
• Change culture in traffic engineers
• Produced a radical Cycle Action Plan and got it signed off by the
councillors 4
• Instrumental in getting management to take out six parking bays at
council buildings 4
and replacing them with bike sheds
• Consultation techniques (internal and external) 4
• Ways to improve communicating with internal/external stakeholders
• One way exemptions in roads considered too narrow 4
• Secure cycle parking on estates and at stations 4
• Cycle parking at station (Network Rail Station) out of the control of
the borough
• Promoting community ownership of cycle facility 4
“Rating” refers to the scoring used. The issues with the highest scores
are those of most interest to participants.
Extract from London Cycling Benchmarking Project Report: July 2008,
Graham Smith (Cyclox), Jan 09
dan....@bt.com
Couple of things struck me on a quick reading.
1. LB of Ealing are putting real money into the scheme, eg by providing bike lockers for people living in areas without secure bike parking
2. Training doesn't hide from the fact that there is real traffic out there - as an ex-resident of Ealing I spotted that they were training kids on roads I used to find pretty intimidating. I was interested to see that the photographs were not taken at places where there are bus/bike lanes.
And the bleeding obvious - LB of Ealing has a bike officer.
Dan
Richard Mann
long, I've noticed a few small differences in the urban form in the two
locations. These differences are partly a matter of city size, partly a
matter of what previous generations have bequeathed us, and partly a
matter (here) of deliberate evolution over the last three decades.
London has lots of back streets (a bit like East Oxford, but generally
busier). So you can create lots of quietish routes with minimal use of
off-road facilities. London's back street routes tend to have more
traffic than ours, so the key thing about using them is the sort of good
road positioning and cycle training that Dan advocates (and it's pretty
hairy for under-12s). Creating quiet routes in Oxford needs a bit more
linking up with off-road facilities, and they tend to be more
circuitous, but the on road bits have so little traffic that frankly
most of them are safe enough for a supervised toddler (though possibly
not worth trying with their mother present).
Our back street routes don't work as well for adults, because they are
circuitous and journeys are short, but fortunately the main roads aren't
generally as busy (and they go straight to a fairly compact city
centre). We don't have any 1930s LCC arterials or gyratories. There are
many fewer traffic lights and busy junctions, and only a handful of
4-way junctions. A large proportion of traffic is concentrated on a
handful of routes, so conflicts are fairly predictable. But we do have a
large amount of queuing traffic. In this situation the best solution is
cycle lanes (or bus lanes) on all the busy sections. Cycle lanes on
less-busy sections and at less-busy times are mostly a matter of
advertising the presence of a through route and demonstrating that
someone's gone to the effort of thinking about parking etc - not
essential but a reasonable way of establishing that the route is
halfway-cyclable.
In London, much of the inner main road network is non-stop shops. This
makes providing for middling-adult cyclists (who would quite like the
comfort of cycle lanes) pretty difficult, and the simplest thing
all-round is for them to use the back-street routes, leaving the main
roads to the hard-core cyclists who are certainly better off positioning
themselves like cars anyway.
Oxford is not London. Nor is it Amsterdam or Copenhagen (or indeed one
of the many smaller Danish and Dutch cities that have been building
cycle tracks for as long as we've been putting in bus & cycle lanes). It
has a road network structure and usage pattern that makes cycle lanes
the appropriate solution.
Richard
Registered in England. Registered no: 347103.
Registered Office: 1 Admiral Way, Doxford International Business Park,
Sunderland, SR3 3XP.
The contents of this e-mail are confidential and may be privileged and
protected by law and are intended solely for the use of the person to whom
they are addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message please notify the
sender immediately, disclosure of its content to any other person is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please note that any views expressed in this e-mail may be those of the
originator and do not necessarily reflect those of this organisation.
Copyright in this e-mail and attachment(s) belongs to
Arriva plc.
Internet e-mail is not a secure communications medium.
Please note this lack of security when responding by e-mail. Accordingly,
we give no warranties or assurances about the safety and content of this
e-mail and its attachments.
Neither Arriva plc nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses
and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments.
Any liability arising from any third party acting on any information
contained in this e-mail is hereby excluded.
Richard Mann
A very interesting presentation from Graham Smith on Shared Space last
night (lots and lots of photos).
Thinking about it afterwards, one key observation is that the
higher-traffic shared-space schemes have little explicit provision for
cyclists, but this is because cyclists are allowed to go anywhere (stay
in the narrow traffic space if it is flowing, cut across the non-traffic
space if not). So a key feature for cyclists is the lack of a kerb &
pedestrians not minding about cyclists on the pavement. Hmm.
On the whole I think I'd rather have slightly more traffic space (but
not too much) and keep the cyclists on the road.
Richard
Simon Li
> A very interesting presentation from Graham Smith on Shared Space last
> night (lots and lots of photos).
>
> Thinking about it afterwards, one key observation is that the
> higher-traffic shared-space schemes have little explicit provision for
> cyclists, but this is because cyclists are allowed to go anywhere (stay
> in the narrow traffic space if it is flowing, cut across the non-traffic
> space if not). So a key feature for cyclists is the lack of a kerb &
> pedestrians not minding about cyclists on the pavement. Hmm.
Since it's shared space this is balanced by cyclists and drivers not
minding pedestrians on the road.
> On the whole I think I'd rather have slightly more traffic space (but
> not too much) and keep the cyclists on the road.
Wouldn't the in-between option of "slightly more space" be the worst
solution? Restricted space with appropriate measures to limit speeds
means cyclists use the main carriageway. Loads of space means you can
put in a decent cycle lane, though that still creates conflict at
junctions where you need to cross lanes. Slightly more space means
cars moving faster and squeezing past without leaving sufficient room,
and probably increased speeds.
James Dawton
surface full width (often brick), but a very low kerb (15mm at 45 deg or so)
aprox in the "normal" kerb position. easy enough to walk across/up/down,
could ride it at a reasonable angle, but the kerb tends to keep cyclists on
the "road" section. As always, its what you make it LOOK like more than what
it is!
James D
Richard Mann
giving into a huge cycle/pedestrian area all round the roundabout. The
cyclists by default will be in the non-car space, not in the car-space.
You certainly wouldn't expect many pedestrians wandering on the
car-space (the centre of the roundabout is no-mans land), and there are
clear places to cross (zebras) on the periphery. At that volume of
traffic, there isn't really non-crossing sharing between cars and
pedestrians.
I think the general approach of squeezing the car traffic is pretty much
a given. The interesting thing is the non-segregation of cyclists from
pedestrians in the space in-between. This is also rather in contrast to
the Swiss approach of putting the cyclists in the car space, not
particularly squeezing them, but using a tight entry angle to slow cars
down.
In some ways it probably doesn't matter - once you've squeezed the cars
then it's all safe enough. But there are distinct differences in the
level of comfort afforded to cyclists (various types) and pedestrians
(various types). In the case of Frideswide Square, I'm not sure I'd want
all the cyclists on the pavement at the first whiff of traffic
congestion.
Richard Mann
onto the OSMap
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75168&lon=-1.27821&zoom=13
(click on the plus on the right edge of the map window to pick the Cycle
Map version of the map, otherwise you can't see what I'm talking about)
This was achieved by adding the lcn=yes tag to all the route sections,
and I'll probably be doing the same to the other main routes in the city
that I know of - please comment/adjust if you think I'm marking the
wrong ones! At the moment I'm sticking to marking radial routes.
Cycle lanes are marked on a couple of roads in Oxford (Cowley Road and
Kennett Road) though the map doesn't seem to allow a cycle lane on one
side and not the other, and doesn't allow a basic quality level to be
shown. A little bit of digging reveals no real consensus on how these
things should be marked, and I think we may need to start something that
works for us, and see whether we can get it rendered (displayed).
Possibly cyclability_left=good/ok/poor and
cyclability_right=good/ok/poor (the first applies to travel on the left
hand side if facing in the direction of the way, the second to the right
hand side if facing in the direction of the way). This would be with a
view to displaying these as green/amber/red lines on the appropriate
side of the road, on top of where cycle lanes would otherwise show, and
hopefully also marked across junctions with roads that don't have that
information (ie side roads). If we did this assessment for all main
roads, you'd get a nice tram-line effect joining up the whole city, as
well as all the blue/red lcn/ncn routes.
Discussion please.
Richard
Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
> I've successfully added the two main cycle routes through West Oxford
> onto the OSMap
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75168&lon=-1.27821&zoom=13
>
> (click on the plus on the right edge of the map window to pick the Cycle
> Map version of the map, otherwise you can't see what I'm talking about)
>
> This was achieved by adding the lcn=yes tag to all the route sections,
> and I'll probably be doing the same to the other main routes in the city
> that I know of - please comment/adjust if you think I'm marking the
> wrong ones! At the moment I'm sticking to marking radial routes.
What you've done looks great! you've been lucky to submit just before an
OCM update it seems:
http://opencyclemap.org/?zoom=15&lat=51.74932&lon=-1.27661&layers=B000
-- crossing=toucan gets its own rendering (green blob, ugh)
I think there's an "lcn_ref=." in there somewhere, which looks ugly at
wider zooms: LCNs get a strong blue line and a shield at smaller scales.
How is it signed, may I ask? Perhaps we should take pictures and post
them on the wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oxford/Cyclox_map_2009
to say what's a "local" and what's a "regional" cycle network. If my
camera were back from the Nokia fixitup mice, I'd be doing it myself.
Andy's guide at
http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/cycle-info/
describes them in terms of Sustrans's classifications. Guess the
councils' routes are all "local" or lcn=yes in this scheme.
> Cycle lanes are marked on a couple of roads in Oxford (Cowley Road and
> Kennett Road) though the map doesn't seem to allow a cycle lane on one
> side and not the other, and doesn't allow a basic quality level to be
> shown. A little bit of digging reveals no real consensus on how these
> things should be marked, and I think we may need to start something that
> works for us, and see whether we can get it rendered (displayed).
Working on it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/right_left seems
like the best proposal to me right now, but time for me is really
limited. Anyone want to help me thrash it into something more workable,
maybe re-RFC it and make sure it doesn't stagnate?
Yes, if we do our own rendering, we can render anything we like! Artem's
told me that Mapnik is capable of doing different casings on different
sides of the road...
> [...] cycleability [...]
Will reply separately.
--
Andrew Chadwick
Richard Mann
the additional info simple enough that someone will be prepared to
render it.
Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
> Possibly cyclability_left=good/ok/poor and
> cyclability_right=good/ok/poor (the first applies to travel on the left
> hand side if facing in the direction of the way, the second to the right
> hand side if facing in the direction of the way). This would be with a
> view to displaying these as green/amber/red lines on the appropriate
> side of the road, on top of where cycle lanes would otherwise show, and
> hopefully also marked across junctions with roads that don't have that
> information (ie side roads). If we did this assessment for all main
> roads, you'd get a nice tram-line effect joining up the whole city, as
> well as all the blue/red lcn/ncn routes.
I like this idea, although I think it should be done with :left and
:right for consistency with a number of existing schemes, and support
tagging as just "cyclability" for the entire way (meaning both directions).
[This idea might be of use to other road users as well: pedestrians,
horse riders, motorists, whoever. "bicycle:suitability:left", anyone?
Maybe trying to keep everyone happy and included in the OSM tagging
scheme up front isn't the best way of doing this though: after all,
there is a bike-specific standard out there]
Have you had a look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Cheltenham_Standard
at all? Ages-old stuff of mine and RichardF's about what seems to be
turning into a national mapping standard: although one with a *hideous*
angry-candy colour scheme. We can pastelify their colour choice, maybe,
or use fewer/better colours. We should probably dovetail with their
levels though: they're fine-grained and well thought out, and refer to
the National Cycle Training Standard. There seem to be five levels,
referring to the three levels of the NCTS like this:
Cheltenham colour Suitable for NCTS level
---------------------- -----------------------
Yellow All
Green 2, 3, maybe 1 with supv.
Blue 2, 3 only
Red 3, some 2
Purple 3 only
I'd specifically want to avoid using a colour-based approach when
tagging for OSM: renderers should be free to do their own thing and not
feel guilty about rendering "Purple" as red with green spots or
whatever. My thoughts for tagging for OSM:
cyclability=1;2;3 => Cheltenham Yellow
cyclability=some_1;2;3 => " Green
cyclability=2;3 => " Blue
cyclability=some_2;3 => " Red
cyclability=3 => " Purple
(The standard actually uses the term "Cyclability" and refers you to
TRL research to understand what that concept means. +1 on this term)
your thoughts? If we express it in NCTS levels, then one day, a timid
NCTS level 2 cyclist or a brave/supervised level 1 cyclist might be able
to get a custom map tailored just for them: or at the very least a
custom route from A to B on their iPhone-alike device!
It would be nice to use terms like moderate_through or busy_complex
because they're human-readable. But this makes it look subjective, and
OSM doesn't like subjective; in addition, not all Green roads are
'moderate' or 'through': some quiet or non-through roads might be
classed as Green due to junction complexity.
I had a go at identifying some factors that could be used as the basis
of an automated first stab at making levels for streets at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cheltenham_Standard
though I've no code yet. Guess it would run as a pre-pass on downloaded
data: Mapnik might not be able to aggregate multiple features dotted
down a road to make a colour for the road itself.
Other links pertaining to this idea:
http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/resources/mapping.php
-- current home of the standard
http://www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/map_standard.html
-- previous revision, where it grew up
http://www.the-edens.org.uk/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=29
-- a group making one of these things, sadly based on AtoZ base layers
-- who say that grading first as a desktop exercise gets you 80% done
--
Andrew Chadwick
Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
> I like the :left and :right suggestion. The key question is how we keep
> the additional info simple enough that someone will be prepared to
> render it.
I've posted about the Cheltenham/national standard elsewhere in this
thread. I think it's worth a look at; we're by no means constrained to
use their vile colour scheme or even their number of levels in any maps
we generate.
Apply the KISS principle as we work.
Work through the OSM tagging proposal process, perhaps. Lapidiary. Tends
to smooth off rough edges and difficult-to-implement or pointless
features in the long run.
IMO, we want our own rendering, and if we try to do that, we'll see any
rough edges ourselves of course. Quick thoughts: if we make the
structure of the value part of a tag nice and simple and well-defined -
using a published dictionary of possible values! - it'll be simpler to
implement and thus more likely to be picked up by others.
--
Andrew Chadwick
Richard Mann
was more route-based.
In terms of main roads (which are my main concern - lcn=yes does the job
for quiet routes), there's only really two of the Cheltenham levels*
that apply, but these can probably be used and combined with the
presence of cycle lanes to give a three-level rendering:
1) green = A/B road + cyclability=3 + bus lane / cycle lane / cycle
track
2) yellow = A/B road + cyclability=3 + no bus lane / cycle lane / cycle
track
3) red = A/B road + cyclability=4
*I'd suggest translating the Cheltenham standard into Cyclability
1(=Yellow) upto 5(=Purple). Or verygood to verybad.
Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
> I think we've had this discussion and concluded we wanted something that
> was more route-based.
I don't think the standards document was shown at the informal meeting
in December, so we might not have had a properly informed discussion.
Oxford is very radial in structure. Route-based could work well.
Declaration of bias: I know how naff for utility cycling many official
bicycle routes can be, and how poorly they can compare to individual
routes you choose yourself to match current conditions and what you're
trying to do.
If we do our own routes or networks for this, we should use the criteria
the NCMS people are using, or the NCTS expected skillsets for particular
levels to inform what we're doing.
> In terms of main roads (which are my main concern - lcn=yes does the job
> for quiet routes), there's only really two of the Cheltenham levels*
> that apply, but these can probably be used and combined with the
> presence of cycle lanes to give a three-level rendering:
> 1) green = A/B road + cyclability=3 + bus lane / cycle lane / cycle
> track
> 2) yellow = A/B road + cyclability=3 + no bus lane / cycle lane / cycle
> track
> 3) red = A/B road + cyclability=4
Using pure red / green excludes 7 to 10% of the male population, so we
might want to use a slightly different palette[1].
Assume you mean to leave what the Cheltenham/NCMS people would render as
yellow - residential, service, little roads and cycle paths - as white
with black casing. I think SimonB's quite keen on lessening the
distinction (in colour at least) between road and good off-road cycle
track, and that's good for me too provided we have a width or casing
weight distinction there. Does that make it a 4-level colour scheme?
Personally, I'm not so bothered about official main road classification
("B road", "A road", "trunk road" and so on) for a cycle map; I'd rather
just be given a measure of how reasonable it is to cycle down it. And I
think that's what your colour scheme
What about Cheltenham's purple ("cyclability=5")? The distinction
between this and the next one down is quite meaningful, and covers such
parts of Oxford as the ring road - not all of which has cycle lanes -
and arterials like Oxford Road (the one from the Morris works to the
obelisk: lots of Royal Mail trucks, and a fun large roundabout).
Roads you're forbidden from cycling on should be deemphasised. How? Grey
out the casing and don't colour in, perhaps? This might make it a
6-colour scheme... X(
> *I'd suggest translating the Cheltenham standard into Cyclability
> 1(=Yellow) upto 5(=Purple). Or verygood to verybad.
Well... given the very_ugly OSM politicking and Wiki edit wars over the
(very_horrible) Smoothness proposal which uses very similar terms, I
wouldn't use the wordy values myself. Trust me, you don't want to know:/
Given that both the NSfCT and the NCMS use quite well-defined scales,
plain numbers would probably be perfectly appropriate. The question is
whether to use NSfCT (as combinations of their 3 levels) or NCMS
verbatim (5 levels, sadly entirely specced as a dayglo colour-scheme
resembling the side of a packet of Refreshers). Will think some more on
this.
[1] http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#pallet is one alternative.
--
Andrew Chadwick
Richard Mann
exhaustively. Looks like it might be a rendering rather than data issue.
Cyclability=5 - yes sure it might be used in a few places, but I
wouldn't bother marking it on dual carriageways, which are distinctive
enough.
Colours - maybe do yellow as dashed and red as dotted (short gaps).
Red/amber/green has too much intuitive value for 95% of the population
to be dropped lightly.
Backstreets - yes leave them white. Might be a case for shading the
busier ones (green in Cheltenham terms), but picking out the positive
(routes) is more helpful than picking out the negative (busy).
Scale - 1-5 seems the best bet
Philip Swan
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/forum/letters/4081781.Not_for_cyclists/
The link might give you a clue to tone of the letter
Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
> This mapping project has got some publicity - well a letter in the Oxford
> Times
>
> http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/forum/letters/4081781.Not_for_cyclists/
>
> The link might give you a clue to tone of the letter
Responded, hopefully accurately. I've surveyed the Northern end of that
walk myself, but not the Southern run, so it's partly my turf :) Quite
how one gets from maps to yoofs on nasty Y-frame boingers frightening
pedestrians I don't understand, but hey. No such thing as bad publicity.
--
Andrew Chadwick
benoxf
Best
Tristram
-----Original Message-----
From: cyclox...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cyclox...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
Sent: 29 January 2009 18:27
To: cyclox...@googlegroups.com
gps...@brookes.ac.uk
copy to Cllr Price,
The footway written about has been a regular route, for donkey's years, or
perhaps at least since the extra 'housing for sale' was laced around the
60s council housing at St Ebbes (Friars Wharf and Preachers lane).
Far be it for me to suggest that some of the private residents do not feel
comfortable with the neighbouring social housing tenants. So there is
possibly a bit of 'class hatred'. Additionally the new housing was
stupidly designed (and allowed by the Council) in that a public path runs
along the private-side of the dwellings, and along the stream. Because
the view is quite pretty the private houses all had very low walls
provided by the developer, for the residents to get a view. (Compare this
with the same developer's 'social housing' which backs onto the river,
with 6ft walls!)
Because the walls to the stream are mostly low the residents can easily
feel 'overlooked'. To get privacy for themselves (which might be seen as
selfish if they demanded that the path were closed) a 'war on
irresponsible cyclists' is an easy one to promote, and to get the
acquiesence of local politicians, because votes count. The County put in
the barriers, originally so badly positioned that it was impossible to
wheel a pushchair through. The barriers were moved apart a little but it
is clear to see that the purpose of the fences is to privatise a public
path, and to use the alleged 'danger of cyclists' as a reason.
Ms B. Raw is an ex-planning inspector, I have been told, so she knows her
rules. She is reportedly a bit on the noisy side in that resident's
association, and perhaps doesn't have lot to do ...
And all of this is a key reminder that the detail of planning applications
matters, it matters enormously, and if badly designed building layouts
like this are allowed, it will have an impact on the mode of cycling. It
will put the cyclists who could use this route, from all of South Oxford
heading to the west, the station and the proposed new 'West End'etc, onto
the particularly threatening bit of the Oxpens 'dual carriageway'.
Please do put the path onto the cycle map!
Graham Smith
Philip Swan
Kevin Hickman
I think we've had this discussion and concluded we wanted something that was more route-based.
Cheers,
Kevin.
Simon Li
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oxford/Cyclox_map_2009
Maybe it would be a good idea to move the discussion of the finer
points of mapping and underlying data representation there, or start a
new Cyclox list? I'm happy to read about it in my inbox, but I suspect
many list subscribers are only interested in the final rendering.
Simon
2009/1/30 Kevin Hickman <kevin....@zen.co.uk>:
Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
> I skipped the meeting last week on account of it sounding like a re-run
> of the introductory meeting in December. I'm not suggesting we have post
> introductory meeting for my benefit, but it would be helpful to know
> what was decided, who's doing what etc.
Kevin, hi -- sorry you couldn't attend --
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oxford/Cyclox_map_2009 has been
updated. Is there anything else that should go on this project page? Do
log in and edit. Ask questions there. Use it as a forum and for status
whiteboarding / planning. I want to get everyone talking and organising
stuff together rather than have the process bottleneck. Through dynamism
and ad-hockery comes robustness and progress :)
Organise another informal gathering maybe, ideally with stuff to show
and talk about this time. By now, people have been out on the streets
mapping - there have been *lots* of edits and contributions from several
users just over the past week, according to my favourite OSM tracker,
http://www.itoworld.com/product/osm , and I've been answering questions
by email (which is counterproductive really, and I should be encouraging
people to discuss here).
Should we get together at FFTMC/Jam Factory again this coming week to
discuss progress and any difficulties, share tips and tricks?
--
Andrew Chadwick
Colin & Sally Hersom
I was doing. I did it because I felt that clogging up this forum with
mapping discussions would not be welcome. So I have started the
"discussion" page on the Wiki, so we should be able to take this
conversation over there.
--
Colin.
Kevin Hickman
Kevin.
Andrew Chadwick (Cyclox)
> Andrew is probably criticising me for using direct email to discuss what
> I was doing.
Not at all. My fault really; and it's really an organisational thing. No
criticism intended for your or any other contributor who's mailed me :)
> I did it because I felt that clogging up this forum with
> mapping discussions would not be welcome. So I have started the
> "discussion" page on the Wiki, so we should be able to take this
> conversation over there.
If it's useful general tips and tricks, and thoughts about what form a
Cyclox map should take or how the process should move forwards, then
feel free to discuss here :) Plus, share if you came across anything
interesting or unusual
OSM-specific details and things hyperfocusing on the intricacies of
tagging might be a bit OT though: feel free to pop along to
irc://irc.oftc.net/%23osm (i.e. #osm on irc.oftc.net), or to sign up to
any of the OSM mailing lists:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
- "newbies" and/or "talk" are the usual recommendations
One of the things we're undecided on is what supplemental matter ought
to go on the printed map besides a map and a key. Should it take the
form of a full-on A-Z style street index perhaps, or minimaps, or Cyclox
membership info, or safety tips and riding advice...? Me, I do maps, I
know noothing of this bit :)
--
Andrew Chadwick