[Talk-GB] TPT / NCN62 (was: Re: National Cycle Network removal/reclassification)
On 18/07/2020 17:06, Adam Snape wrote: On the subject of overlapping relations. I've recently noticed that the NCN 62 relation has been named Transpennine trail which is true for much, but not all of the route. The TPT ends at Southport, yet NCN 62 continues further North. At the eastern end of the TPT goes far beyond the end of NCN 62 which ends at Selby. They need to be two separate relations. The Trans-Pennine Trail is a bit confusing, both on the ground and in OSM. A quick query in OSM south of Selby turns up this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12763 "ref=62; name=Trans Pennine Trail" and this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1761919#map=10/53.7874/-0.6265=H "ref=TPT; name=Trans Pennine Trail" and also this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10521621#map=10/53.6371/-1.2158=H "name=Trans Pennine Trail (Wombwell to Selby)" It essentially goes all over the place, and doesn't correspond to one particular NCN (see https://www.transpenninetrail.org.uk/?doing_wp_cron=1595095458.735897064208984375 ). The Chesterfield end has two braids and partially corresponds to what is or was NCN 67. The superroute I believe is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4139041 If NCN 62 isn't properly called the Transpennine Trail I'd remove that name from it and explain in a note on the relation why. My recollection is that NCN62 and TPT signage is separate, but it's a while since I've seen any so I may be wrong. The best approach for tidying would I think be to: * Find anything not in the superroute and figure out what the status actually is. * Ensure that routes in the superroute are split where tags change (e.g. bits with NCN 62 signage and bits without) It'd be a lot of work for relatively little reward though - presumably that's why no-one's stepped up to tidy things up yet. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification
On the subject of overlapping relations. I've recently noticed that the NCN 62 relation has been named Transpennine trail which is true for much, but not all of the route. The TPT ends at Southport, yet NCN 62 continues further North. At the eastern end of the TPT goes far beyond the end of NCN 62 which ends at Selby. They need to be two separate relations. I generally just use ID and it seems very time consuming to fix one section at a time using ID, but I'm sure there's an easier way using JOSM or something! If anybody with a better grasp than me of the tools could correct this it would be much appreciated. Kind regards, Adam On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 14:49 Richard Fairhurst, wrote: > Hi all, > > As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review > and improve the National Cycle Network. > > As part of this, sections of routes which Sustrans thinks have no > realistic prospect of being brought up to a minimum standard in the near > future are being either removed from the network entirely, or > "reclassified" - which in practice means that they might still be > signposted as cycle routes, but not with an NCN number, and probably > maintained/promoted by local authorities rather than by Sustrans. > Generally, these are minor roads where the level of traffic is too high. > > For example, the Avon and Wiltshire circular cycleways (currently NCN 410 > and 254 respectively) will be reclassified out of the NCN, while the routes > in Rutland have been pretty much removed entirely. > > Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of > this, which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The > dashed lines are reclassified, while some sections have been removed > entirely. > > It's not currently released under an open licence so not suitable for > direct inclusion into OSM. I will see if I can get permission for the data > to be used. > > I believe that "re-signing" will be starting imminently so you may start > to see route signs removed, or the numbers being patched over, or replaced > with route logos or names. At which point, of course, it's fair game for > OSM. > > Where a section of route has been removed, it'll be a straightforward case > of removing it from the relation (or on occasion deleting an entire > relation). Where one has been reclassified, I suspect the tagging decision > is less clear. Sometimes we might want to move it to a new relation with > network=rcn or network=lcn; sometimes I suspect there could be a case for > keeping it in the existing relation with a 'link' role; sometimes we may > want to have two partly overlapping relations, one for the now shortened > NCN route, another for the full named route (e.g. NCN 78 vs the Caledonian > Way). There may even be cases where a route is removed from the NCN but > remains as a EuroVelo route. > > cheers > Richard > [writing in a personal capacity only etc. etc.] > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification
Hi all, As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review and improve the National Cycle Network. As part of this, sections of routes which Sustrans thinks have no realistic prospect of being brought up to a minimum standard in the near future are being either removed from the network entirely, or "reclassified" - which in practice means that they might still be signposted as cycle routes, but not with an NCN number, and probably maintained/promoted by local authorities rather than by Sustrans. Generally, these are minor roads where the level of traffic is too high. For example, the Avon and Wiltshire circular cycleways (currently NCN 410 and 254 respectively) will be reclassified out of the NCN, while the routes in Rutland have been pretty much removed entirely. Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of this, which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The dashed lines are reclassified, while some sections have been removed entirely. It's not currently released under an open licence so not suitable for direct inclusion into OSM. I will see if I can get permission for the data to be used. I believe that "re-signing" will be starting imminently so you may start to see route signs removed, or the numbers being patched over, or replaced with route logos or names. At which point, of course, it's fair game for OSM. Where a section of route has been removed, it'll be a straightforward case of removing it from the relation (or on occasion deleting an entire relation). Where one has been reclassified, I suspect the tagging decision is less clear. Sometimes we might want to move it to a new relation with network=rcn or network=lcn; sometimes I suspect there could be a case for keeping it in the existing relation with a 'link' role; sometimes we may want to have two partly overlapping relations, one for the now shortened NCN route, another for the full named route (e.g. NCN 78 vs the Caledonian Way). There may even be cases where a route is removed from the NCN but remains as a EuroVelo route. cheers Richard [writing in a personal capacity only etc. etc.] ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
