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, <rich...@systemed.net> 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
