Robert Whittaker wrote: > Sustrans' NCN data is available from > http://livingatlas-dcdev.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/54a66fa3c15d4e118e085fbd9b141aae > as vector tiles under the ODbL. However, note that the "removed" > sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the > dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where > the route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that > some of the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and > will quickly be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.
It's in friendlier formats at https://data-sustrans-uk.opendata.arcgis.com :) Many of the changes are fairly unambiguous and could be made directly using this data as a guide. For example, the Wiltshire Cycleway is no longer NCN 254, so can be changed to network=rcn and the ref= tag removed. The parts of NCN 20 between Crawley and the outskirts of Brighton can be removed entirely from the relation. And so on. There are a few cases where it's not immediately clear what will happen to the route - in Shropshire, for example, where several routes are being reclassified or removed. In these cases then we can probably make tentative changes but will need to keep an eye on the ground for signage to see the future fate of both these routes and other nearby ones (which might be renumbered?). And, as you say, there may be some small gaps that have inadvertently arisen. I would also encourage people to look carefully at the sections that are being removed, and consider whether the way tagging is appropriate. It's plausible that there are some highway=unclassifieds in there that would better be highway=tertiary. It would also often be helpful to add a lanes= tag. > We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be > more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes > that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM? Precedent is generally that non-Sustrans routes are network=rcn, even long-distance ones like the National Byway. I'd suggest we continue to follow this for most redesignated routes. The alternative would be to retain as network=ncn and make use of the operator= tag, but (being blunt) this will probably not be understood by most mappers apart from the small hard core of us who really care about cycle route designation, so it will be broken repeatedly and end up as a maintenance burden. One slight nuance is what we do about redesignated sections of a long- distance cycle route. For example, Hartside will no longer be part of NCN 7 or NCN 68, but will continue to be part of the C2C and Pennine Cycleway. The answer is probably to maintain two separate relations, which is a bit of a maintenance faff but at least understandable. Richard
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
