CHIPS' strategy for route identification

Confirmation is not only an essential part of the ARC principle, it is also a crucial tool in the case of confusion points. These are points where a cyclist might be mislead or gets insecure when confronted with a change of infrastructure. A cyclist also needs confirmation in the case the route goes a long distance straight ahead with no route identification signs along the way (f.i. because there are no decision points like crossings to deal with). Providing more confirmation than strictly needed may also help to improve branding and exposure. 

Recommendations:

• Chips advises to use a code-logo strategy with a letter+number combination (preferably C-numbers).
• The code-logo strategy (identity strategy in Flanders and Copenhagen) improves the brand awareness and can be implemented as markings on the pavement.
• The big size of the codes on the ground in London (f.i. cycle super highways and quiet ways) and the logo's in Flanders and Copenhagen are a best practice. They also improve exposure. The c-numbers in Copenhagen are likely to be too small.
• Surveys show that cyclists notice the markings on the ground.
• Route identification can also be improved by a consequent integration of the code-logo in other wayfinding measures (signposts, metro lines, service stations...).
• More research is needed to determine how much repetition is needed in cases there are no decion points (and  wayfinding measures that repeat the code). Route identification (cycle highway codes) could be less needed if the infrastructural aspect of readability is strong. This is for instance the case when a continuous coloured line is used (see F261 Tilburg or concepts from RS1). For the colour of the line, it is recommended to use the central brand colour of the cycle highway network and to implement a strategy to teach cyclists the meaning of the line (f.i. F261 cycle highway code that helps to explain the connection between Tilburg-Waalwijk).