I have mapped a cycle/footpath in my area, but would appreciate some advice as to whether or not I’ve handled it correctly.
The path is only about 3 miles long, and is mostly off-road. However, there is one stretch of around 500 metres where there is no path; it joins the road and leaves again further along. The road is narrow here, so there is no cycle lane or other provision. At the moment, I have the two sections of dedicated off-road path marked, with nothing in between where the route joins the road. It seemed wrong to mark this as continuous cycle path, as there is no actual provision for cyclists (or pedestrians) in that stretch.
Is this the correct approach, and is there anything I should have done to indicate a relationship between the two sections of path? (Both are named.)
Thanks for the replies. I’m quite new to mapping and appreciate any guidance you can give.
This is roughly the area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/55.6353/-6.1247 The path runs alongside the road on either side of the village of Lagavulin. It’s of recent construction, and isn’t on the satellite imagery; I used a gps trace to map it. I don’t know if this image is of any help:
I just included it to show that the path is considered to be a complete route, even though a short stretch of it uses the existing road with no additional provision. (I know the route well, and don’t need the board for mapping purposes; I was simply trying to provide more information for anyone interested, as suggested. :))
If the route is signposted all the time as “The Three Distilleries Path”, you have to create a relation for that one.
The route relation will then contain the two sections you added and part of the road that already existed. You might have to split that one so you can add the section (and not more) between the two paths you added.
More information on the tags for cycle routes can be found on the wiki
Hi, the two walls and two streams that the new way crosses should be adjusted to accommodate the path. Also as escada mentioned the new way would be best described in a route relation, how to here :- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
I also suggested a relation, but the difficulty may be that iD is not the right tool for the job.Whilst I think it has limited abilities to edit relations, I cannot find any way of creating them. I think this has to be a job for JOSM. Although your changeset comment says you have added a route relation, you haven’t actually done that, all you have done is added a route tag. One thing to note is the aim is not to get the path labelled on its full length in every rendering of the map, but simply to record it in the data so that a suitable rendering or routing application can find it.
Unless the path is physically separated from the motor vehicle road, only the road should exist as an actual way. If is is physically separated the crossover should not be diagonal, unless there are actual markings on the road at such an angle.
Again assuming that it is not physically separated, I’d question the foot=designated and even bicycle=designated on the shared section.
You might also want to note http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer in relation to the stream. If it is underground, it needs location= underground. If not, a bridge, tunnel, or culvert needs to be explicitly mapped where the path crosses it.
If you are mapping this based on familiarity with the area, you should include source=local_knowledge on either the changeset or the feature itself. source really should be specified on every changeset. If the editor won’t let you do this, include the source in the actual comment.
Thank you, yes. I realised I’d need to recheck the route to see exactly what happens to the walls, but I’ve not had a chance yet because of foul weather.
I thought I had done that, but I realise now I hadn’t.
Yes, that’s what I was using, and I was confused trying to follow the guidelines for a route relation.
I understand that now. I’ve just looked at it in JOSM, but when I select the first section of off-road path, and try to add the route relation, it tells me the selection is unsuitable. Clearly I’m doing something wrong, but I’ve yet to work out what it is.
Yes, I understand that. That was my initial concern, that I had two unconnected sections and I wanted to ensure they could be properly related to each other.
For most of its distance, the path is entirely separated from the road - by a wall, fence, small banking etc.
The path stops on either side of the village of Lagavulin, and the route continues along the existing road until the next section of path.
I’m assuming this is in relation to the point between Lagavulin and Ardbeg where the path crosses to the other side of the road. At both sides, the path is separated from the road by a wall, which has an opening in it to access the path. The two openings are diagonally opposite each other, not directly opposite.
OK - I was very unsure about that. Like most of the roads in this area, it is the only route, so pedestrians, bicycles and even horses need to take their chances with it; there is no other option. (Hence the new off-road path is such a benefit.)
Thank you. The rest of this area was mapped by others; I only added the path. I’m aware that there are missing details; my bike only records a gps trace and doesn’t provide a facility to mark POIs. I need to redo the route with OSMtracker to record the bridges and access points accurately, and also add POIs, such as the benches and picnic tables provided along the route.
Again, thanks for the reminder. I think I generally do, but I’m still finding my feet with mapping and don’t always remember everything I should.