smurph wrote > I've just been looking through the CUBA data and I think we need to show > that a route is part of a relation (specifically NCNs - which are mostly > done by relation in the Bristol area) to avoid someone retagging all of > the ways as NCN when they are already part of an NCN relation.
Similar situation in Northumberland: the NCNs round here are all in relations. In fact the "Cycle" tab on Potlatch2 treats all cycle routes as relations, so it is likely to be very common across the country. Perhaps the tool could be modified to take account of the "network" and "ref" tags on any "type=route"+"route=bicycle" relation applied to the way? Or perhaps just warn against merging *_ref tags when a way also has type=route relations on it? On my local routes the DfT data is completely wrong anyway. They have parts of the paved NCN72 (Hadrian's Cycleway) tagged as unpaved NCN10 (Reiver's Cycle Route) , which is actually about 8km north. Will the errors/discrepancies we identify be fed back to the DfT? -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713210.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
