Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 16/08/2020 17:46, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > I should think that in places where there is a good, cycle-dedicated way > roughly parallel to a canal, a pedestrian-respecting router would recommend > that cyclists stick to the cycle-dedicated way. A good example of this might be where NCN route 1

Re: [Talk-GB] [talk-gb] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

I should think that in places where there is a good, cycle-dedicated way roughly parallel to a canal, a pedestrian-respecting router would recommend that cyclists stick to the cycle-dedicated way. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, at

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 20:44, David Woolley wrote: > > On 14/08/2020 19:14, Simon Still wrote: >> I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that changes anything - >> pedestrians have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag would >> add anything > > Towpaths are privately

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

Aug 14, 2020, 15:53 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk: > On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > >> If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should >> not be mapped in OSM*. >> > > In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 14/08/2020 19:14, Simon Still wrote: I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that changes anything - pedestrians have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag would add anything Towpaths are privately paths (currently owned by the Canals and Rivers Trust), so the rules

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 14/08/2020 19:14, Simon Still wrote: > > >> On 14 Aug 2020, at 16:47, Ken Kilfedder > > wrote: >> >> I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - >> at least there are signs to that effect all over the place.  Well >> worth tagging

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 16:47, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > > I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - at least > there are signs to that effect all over the place. Well worth tagging them > to that effect if true. I’m not sure that’s actually a legal status that

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - at least there are signs to that effect all over the place. Well worth tagging them to that effect if true. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, at 1:55 PM, Simon Still

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 14/08/2020 13:55, Simon Still wrote: > See the blog posts that I linked to.   > Plus  >  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database  > > (Our involvement has now ended but TfL should be continuing to use CID > info to improve OSM accuracy)  > > More discussion

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 14/08/2020 14:53, David Woolley wrote: On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should not be mapped in OSM*. In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as there is a general

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should not be mapped in OSM*. In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as there is a general policy of decluttering signs. One of the

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

Peter asked (re NCN 51): > What area is this, please? > > NCN 51 comes near me through Milton Keynes, so I have made some adjustments > to the relation in the past (when it was re-routed to avoid going through the > middle > of the intu shopping centre). I live near the Colchester to Harwich

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 09:31, Robert Skedgell wrote: > > On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote: >> >> In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to >> cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing >> algorithms about the real experience of using them.

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

Aug 13, 2020, 16:41 by simon.st...@gmail.com: > > > >> On 13 Aug 2020, at 11:41, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <>> >> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst <>> rich...@systemed.net>> > >> wrote: >> >>> ... However, note that the

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote: > > In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to > cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing > algorithms about the real experience of using them. > > Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

Hi @Ed, What area is this, please? NCN 51 comes near me through Milton Keynes, so I have made some adjustments to the relation in the past (when it was re-routed to avoid going through the middle of the intu shopping centre).  Regards,Peter On Friday, 14 August 2020, 09:04:51 BST, Ed

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

DaveF replied to: > > So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t > > it remain in OSM? with: > OSM should be using the most up to date data available. In this > instance > I think Sustrans saying they've decommissioned a few NCNs & > publishing > an updated map is

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote: So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on the ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was some discussion recently about this - https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html) This

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 8/13/2020 3:41 PM, Simon Still wrote: Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths, traffic speed all contribute (as does

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

> On 13 Aug 2020, at 11:41, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> ... 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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > 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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On 18/07/2020 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote: As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review and improve the National Cycle Network. (also following on from Jon's message) some of the changes near me do seem a bit odd.

[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

st > To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" > Subject: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification > Message-ID: <0d1959aa-4a3c-4571-91e1-2bf96d9dcfd9@Spark> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all, > > As some of you may

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

[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