David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] wrote: > Sent: 20 June 2012 15:05 > To: Graham Stewart (GrahamS) > Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now > available for merging > > On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote: > > Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route > > (but are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked > > with the ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to. > > > > What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn: > > > > - On the one hand they are not "the route", as in the signed route > > that goes from A to B. They are simply access ways leading to "the > > route". Including them in the route could be misleading. > > > > - But on the other hand, the "on the ground" situation is that > > roads/paths near NCN routes often have signs pointing towards the > > route and these seem (to me) to be indistinguishable from the signs along > the route. > > I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the > council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs: the ncn ref in the > red block with brackets round it: > http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/29870/cyclestreets29870.jpg > > I think we could do well to do the same in the ncn_ref tag. >
That's how I'm tagging. The bracketed NCN number is a relatively new thing from Sustrans. Basically any "route to" or deprecated "braid" should have a bracketed number, though in many locations this may not have happened yet. The number alone without brackets should only be used along the primary NCN route itself. Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
