Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
On 21/12/19 02:55, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
Having unexpectedly found myself with a spare hour, I have had a go
at amending NCN 51 in central Milton Keynes.
There are 3 Changesets involved:
#78646743. The main changes. I marked this to be reviewed, but I do
hope that nobody wants it reverted because I got a bit carried away.
As part of the edit I had to correct a one-way road that isn't really
one-way, but I then carried on resolving issues flagged by the iD
editor; sorry!
#78651993. Mopping up. After the main edit, I spotted a few ways that
I had not removed from the relation, so removed them here.
#78647795. I have flagged some ways with "fixme". They were part of
the old route, but now form a spur off the main route. I have asked
Sustrans whether they consider the spur to be part of NCN 51 and await
their response. I could tag them with "approach", but I'm not clear
whether that would mean that all >1000 other ways in the relation
would then have to be tagged "main ".
I would think 'main'; is the default role - so no need to state it.
And yes I would add the roll 'approach' to the spur off to the train
station.
Open for comments / suggestions.
Regards,
Peter
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers_wl=ym_sub1=Internal_sub2=Global_YGrowth_sub3=EmailSignature>
- Forwarded message -
*From:* "Peter Neale"
*To:* "Talk-gb OSM List"
*Cc:*
*Sent:* Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 13:54
*Subject:* Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route
Relation - NCN Route 51
Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for
their encouragement and help. I will have a go at making the
amendments using the iD Editor.
I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that
Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time
with their families, not on the computer.
Before I start, I have one more question:
@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is
unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route
without unnecessary branches and loops."
However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably
to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other
cyclepaths). There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on
the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but
the other is not. I do not propose to include the unmarked one,
but what about the one that is marked? Should I include it, or not?
Regards,
Peter
___
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] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
Having unexpectedly found myself with a spare hour, I have had a go at amending NCN 51 in central Milton Keynes. There are 3 Changesets involved: #78646743. The main changes. I marked this to be reviewed, but I do hope that nobody wants it reverted because I got a bit carried away. As part of the edit I had to correct a one-way road that isn't really one-way, but I then carried on resolving issues flagged by the iD editor; sorry! #78651993. Mopping up. After the main edit, I spotted a few ways that I had not removed from the relation, so removed them here. #78647795. I have flagged some ways with "fixme". They were part of the old route, but now form a spur off the main route. I have asked Sustrans whether they consider the spur to be part of NCN 51 and await their response. I could tag them with "approach", but I'm not clear whether that would mean that all >1000 other ways in the relation would then have to be tagged "main ". Open for comments / suggestions. Regards, Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android - Forwarded message - From: "Peter Neale" To: "Talk-gb OSM List" Cc: Sent: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 13:54 Subject: Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51 Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help. I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor. I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on the computer. Before I start, I have one more question: @Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops." However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths). There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is not. I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the one that is marked? Should I include it, or not? Regards,Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
On 20/12/19 00:54, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help. I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor. I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on the computer. Before I start, I have one more question: @Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops." However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths). There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is not. I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the one that is marked? Should I include it, or not? Some discussion on the tagging list on this... a read of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles may help. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help. I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor. I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on the computer. Before I start, I have one more question: @Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops." However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths). There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is not. I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the one that is marked? Should I include it, or not? Regards,Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
