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

[Robert Skedgell]

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 runs parallel to the
Lee Navigation towpath (with moored boats) alongside Hackney Marshes.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/7831970

Most of the cycle traffic seems to be local, so most won't be using
routing software. I usually run along the NCN cycle track there because
it's less congested.

I tried a test route from The Greenway to Markfield Recreation ground
with different routing services:
CycleStreets - towpath
cycle.travel - cycle track
Komoot (bike touring) - cycle track
Strava (most direct) - towpath
Obviously this is a tiny and unrepresentative sample.

>> I’m just struggling to think what the tag would add - either for 
>> information or for a routing algorithm.  Also note the the proposals 
>> for the highway code would establish and road user hierarchy which 
>> would apply everywhere 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

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

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

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 3:36 PM, Simon Still wrote:
> 

> I’m just struggling to think what the tag would add - either for 
> information or for a routing algorithm.  Also note the the proposals 
> for the highway code would establish and road user hierarchy which 
> would apply everywhere 
> ___
> 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

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

[Simon Still]

> 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 paths (currently owned by the Canals and Rivers 
> Trust), so the rules for public paths don't apply.  At one time  you had to 
> apply for a free licence to cycle on them, the quid for quo for which was a 
> promise to do things like give pedestrians priority.

True, but there are also ‘pedestrian priority’ signs in parks and on other bits 
of shared path.  No one has ever been stopped by the police for ‘failing to 
give pedestrian priority’ - it would be reckless cycling or something similar. 

I’m just struggling to think what the tag would add - either for information or 
for a routing algorithm.  Also note the the proposals for the highway code 
would establish and road user hierarchy which would apply everywhere 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

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 there is a 
> general policy of decluttering signs.  One of the arguments for that is that 
> everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't need the signs.  I think is 
> also used as an argument for why it can take councils years to fix missing 
> street name signs.
>
> If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on virtual 
> signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!
>

At least in Poland it is purely theoretical issue while problem of 
nonexisting/proposed/gone
route relations cluttering map is real (local governments and organizations 
keep creating various
routes and later fail to maintain them).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[David Woolley]

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 for public paths don't apply.  At one time  you had 
to apply for a free licence to cycle on them, the quid for quo for which 
was a promise to do things like give pedestrians priority.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Robert Skedgell]

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 them to that effect if true.
> 
> 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 

I think that while it's certainly good practice to give priority to
pedestrians on any shared (unsegregated) infrastructure, I'm not sure
how you would tag it in addition to segregated=no.

On canal towpaths, the Canal & River Trust's cycling FAQ states that
"Pedestrians are generally the most vulnerable and have priority at all
times".
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling/cycling-faqs

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Simon Still]

> 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 changes anything - pedestrians 
have priority on all shared use paths so not sure that tag would add anything 


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

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 wrote:
> 
> 
> There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have many - 
> rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width 
> restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.  All 
> of those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo bike or 
> disability adapted cycle. 
> 
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Robert Skedgell]

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 planned within LCC and community to press for better
> navigation and wayfinding 

I look forward to seeing how the discussion progresses.

>>> 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 surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,
>>> smooth tarmac good)  
>>
>> Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have
>> surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently
>> might help.
> 
> Good to know surface is already widely used - I’d managed to miss that
> in the work I’d done. 
> Smoothness is a new tag for me 

One way to improve surface=* tagging (and also lit=*) might be to
encourage people to install the Street Complete mobile app and try using
it when they go for a walk. It's very good at finding gaps even in
places mapped with a lot of detail.

> What has come up in discussions is that it would be good to map
> ‘restrictions’ more comprehensively and have routing algorithms that
> recognised them.  
> 
> There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have
> many - rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width
> restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.
>  All of those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo
> bike or disability adapted cycle. 

On towpaths, they will often be tagged with highway=footway +
bicycle=permissive + towpath=yes. There are times when I would prefer to
use a route which avoided towpaths as much as possible, particularly the
Regent's Canal and places where boats are moored. Having them mapped is
one thing, but persuading any developers of routing software that there
might be enough demand to add it as a routing option is another.

> An objective would be to be able to plan a ‘disabled suitable route’ 

Asking people to add data at street crossings (particularly crossings of
segregated cycle tracks) like dropped kerbs and tactile paving might be
helpful in this respect, even when it is not of direct use to cyclists.
It might not hurt LCC's case to be seen to be assisting VI pedestrians.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Andy Townsend]

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 policy of decluttering signs.  One of the arguments 
for that is that everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't 
need the signs.  I think is also used as an argument for why it can 
take councils years to fix missing street name signs.


If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on 
virtual signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!



That's a bit of an "extrapolation too far" I think.  I don't think 
anyone was talking about general highway signage, just addressing the 
very real problem that happens when cycle routes change and signage 
lags, and the problems that we have when, on a route that goes A-B-C-D, 
Sustrans are no longer looking after the B-C part, but _everyone_ 
following the route will still need to get from B to C, so they'll have 
to "join up the gaps" between the Sustrans-maintained parts.


The key question is what Robert asked at the top of this thread:

> 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.

... actually I'd add here a third category, where there are short gaps 
in existing Sustrans routes.  An example which I've mentioned elsewhere 
is https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/54.23978/-1.20491=C - 
Sustrans don't have NCN 656 running along the A170, there's a gap.


> How can we distinguish these in OSM?
> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

I'd suggest that it makes no sense, in the case of the example above, to 
omit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38353700 from NCN 656.  This is 
what is in OSM now, and I think it makes sense to join the gap where 
there is unambiguously only one way of getting from A to B.  Perhaps 
some sort of role in the relation could be used here to say either "this 
isn't technically part of NCN656, but it's the only way of following 
NCN656, so you're going to have to go along here whether you like it or 
not".  Other "no longer Sustrans but still a promoted named route" 
sections could have a different relation role.


However I don't think that it makes sense to join up routes using any 
sort of guesswork.  Taking NCN 67 at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/53.2344/-1.3726=C as an 
example - there's no point in pretending that it extends north of 
Corbriggs or south of Chesterfield.


Another problem is that the on-the-road updates may not match what 
Sustrans' new maps with dotted lines on them suggest that they will do.  
The NCN1 marker at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=54.30117=-0.44081#map=19/54.30117/-0.44081=C 
has recently been "re-stickered" to remove the Sustrans logo.  As far as 
I can tell that road section isn't on the list to be made 
"non-Sustrans".  I have no idea whether Sustrans' web maps are wrong, 
Sustrans' volunteer has stickered the wrong sign, or (entirely possible) 
I've misread the intent of the re-stickering.


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

[David Woolley]

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 arguments for 
that is that everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't need the 
signs.  I think is also used as an argument for why it can take councils 
years to fix missing street name signs.


If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on 
virtual signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Ed Loach]

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 section, before it takes the foot ferry 
to Suffolk and turns back west past you to Oxford. On the Cycle map layer the 
EV2 labels seem to take priority until you zoom in closer.

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Simon Still]

> 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.
>> 
>> Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London
>> Cycling Campaign. 
> 
> Is there any more information on what LCC are doing in this area? There
> are probably members, myself included, who would be happy to help.
> 
> I know that borough groups audit changes to local infra, but having
> detailed photographs and notes are less useful to the wider cycling
> community than they could be if the information never finds its way onto
> OSM.

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 planned within LCC and community to press for better navigation 
and wayfinding 

>> 
>> 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 surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,
>> smooth tarmac good)  
> 
> Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have
> surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently
> might help.


Good to know surface is already widely used - I’d managed to miss that in the 
work I’d done. 
Smoothness is a new tag for me 

What has come up in discussions is that it would be good to map ‘restrictions’ 
more comprehensively and have routing algorithms that recognised them.  

There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have many - 
rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width 
restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.  All of 
those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo bike or 
disability adapted cycle. 

An objective would be to be able to plan a ‘disabled suitable route’ 

Simon Still;
Campaigns Team, LCC___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

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 "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.
>>
>> 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?
>> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
>> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.
>>
> An interesting conundrum.  I’m thinking about mapping and navigation in 
> London at the moment (see blogs at 
> https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1
> https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding
>
>
> 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> )
>
> So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t it 
> remain in OSM?  
>
Yes, until signs are removed. Though for practical reasons - if there is not 
enough mappers to verify
it fully and it is certain that signs will be removed it may be OK to remove it 
without such survey.

> Conversely  - how do you deal with older bits of say London Cycle Network 
> where signs have been removed or become unreadable.
>
If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should 
not be mapped in OSM*.
Though I would first contact route operator before deleting/changing relation 
in OSM,
if route is supposed to be maintained.

*except rare and extreme cases where route is widely recognized without being 
signed, but
such cases are rare

>  For example, I recently had an extended discussion about the status of the 
> paths in Brockwell Park in Brixton (changeset here - > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875>  )  Maps showed routes and 
> there may once have been signage but there is no longer any signage and 
> supporting information says there is not a designated ‘route’ here. 
>
Then it is eligible for deletion. OSM is not place to map things that used to 
exist but are gone.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Robert Skedgell]

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 the London
> Cycling Campaign. 

Is there any more information on what LCC are doing in this area? There
are probably members, myself included, who would be happy to help.

I know that borough groups audit changes to local infra, but having
detailed photographs and notes are less useful to the wider cycling
community than they could be if the information never finds its way onto
OSM.

> 
> 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 surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad,
> smooth tarmac good)  

Most sections of cycle routes in London which I use already have
surface=* set, but there are areas where using smoothness=* consistently
might help.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

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 Loach  
wrote:  
 
 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 the more accurate information. I don't think the
> relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I
> think).

In some cases OSM *is* the most up to date data there is. Locally I watched as 
the local Sustrans ranger (I hope I've got the term correct) added NCN 150 to 
the map after getting home from putting up the stickers - the relation grew 
over the few days it took. I will be leaving the local part of the NCN 51 
relation that has been reclassified for him to update as and when it gets 
re-stickered.

Ed


___
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

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

[Ed Loach]

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 the more accurate information. I don't think the
> relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I
> think).

In some cases OSM *is* the most up to date data there is. Locally I watched as 
the local Sustrans ranger (I hope I've got the term correct) added NCN 150 to 
the map after getting home from putting up the stickers - the relation grew 
over the few days it took. I will be leaving the local part of the NCN 51 
relation that has been reclassified for him to update as and when it gets 
re-stickered.

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

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 is slightly untrue. Boundaries aren't marked across fields as 
dashed lines, but stored in documentation, usually electronically these 
days. As long as they're published under a compatible licence OSM can, & 
do, use them.




So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t 
it remain in OSM?


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 the more accurate information. I don't think the 
relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I 
think).


DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[John Aldridge]

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 surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad, 
smooth tarmac good)


Definitely. I have no solution to offer, but it's perhaps worth noting 
that there are several classes of user here - what's fine for a mountain 
bike may be downright uncomfortable for a racing bike, and what's fine 
for a leisurely Sunday excursion might be wholly unsuitable for a daily 
commute.


Another aspect which has a big effect on the cycling experience is the 
frequency of encountering walkers (especially dog walkers). If you 
frequently have to slow to a walking pace to get past safely, it rapidly 
spoils the experience.


Being on an NCN is definitely no guarantee: one of the least comfortable 
couple of mile's cycling I recall was on the NCN 3 at Penzance, for example.


John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Simon Still]

> 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 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.
> 
> 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?
> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

An interesting conundrum.  I’m thinking about mapping and navigation in London 
at the moment (see blogs at 
https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1
 

https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding 



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)

So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t it 
remain in OSM?  Conversely  - how do you deal with older bits of say London 
Cycle Network where signs have been removed or become unreadable. For example, 
I recently had an extended discussion about the status of the paths in 
Brockwell Park in Brixton (changeset here - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875 
 )  Maps showed routes and 
there may once have been signage but there is no longer any signage and 
supporting information says there is not a designated ‘route’ here. 

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 the London Cycling 
Campaign. 

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 surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad, smooth tarmac good)  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

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 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.

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.

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?
network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

For anyone interested in working with the data, I'm wondering if
vector tiles is the most convenient format? Would a shapefile be
better for example? I was at Sustrans volunteer webinar last night,
and there was concern about getting various OSM-based maps and routers
updated. So if there's a more convenient data format for OSM mappers,
I think there's a good chance Sustrans would look in to it for us.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Andy Townsend]

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.


https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/54.23559,-1.23235,14

shows a removed on-road section (along a busy A road) that didn't quite 
link two bits of NCN 65 and a similar gap on NCN 656.  OSM fills in both 
gaps (see https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!54.2365!-1.2239 
). It actually seems reasonable to me to provide a contiguous route 
rather than assume the user has some sort of teleportation device.


Does anyone know how Sustrans expect these routes with gaps new and old 
to be used, or is it just them saying that "we can't be held responsible 
for what happens in the gaps"?


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Jon Pennycook]

Clearly, the review of the National Cycle Network isn't too stringent.
NCN223 between Woking and Chertsey is still listed on
https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn, despite the shared use path being
about 2-3 feet wide in many places with blind road crossings, especially
along Guildford Road/Chertsey Road south of Ottershaw. The NCN246 follows a
60mph B road before joining a 30mph A road at Hurstbourne Tarrant, and I am
told is horrible for cycle commuting (it's not much fun for leisure cycling
when it's busy). Parts of the NCN2 in Purbeck are just sand.

The sections removed must be truly awful if all the above are retained. Or
is SusTrans hoping for more money to improve charismatic parts of the
network?

Jon


>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 14:47:31 +0100
> From: Richard Fairhurst 
> 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 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.
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Adam Snape]

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

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