Thanks. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here.

motor_vehicle=yes does not mean "vehicles have been seen here". It means "there is a legal right of access for vehicles".

Seeing vehicles on imagery does not mean that there is a legal right of access for all vehicles. They could be the owner's private vehicles. Or the owner may be extending informal permission temporarily but there is no legal right (motor_vehicle=permissive).

In the UK, public roads with a legal right of access for cars are almost always paved. If you see a highway=track (or =bridleway, or =path) with cars on, then 95% of the time, motor_vehicle=yes will be the wrong tag. There are some exceptions but they are rare and will usually already have been mapped as such.

Perhaps you could feed this back to your Organised Editing programme. Thanks.

Hi - you've added motor_vehicle=yes to way #159381675. What evidence do you have that there is a legal right of way for motor vehicles along this path? https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/54906 suggests that it's a bridleway, in which case there is no legal right of access.

Route ordering is not particularly significant. Any client that makes major use of ordered routes will reorder the data before consuming it.

A really good principle for OSM is "be liberal in what you add, cautious in what you change". People have been mapping cycle routes in Britain for 11 years now - many UK cycle route mappers are actually volunteers for the charity that maintains the National Cycle Network. It is very unlikely that you have suddenly come up with some great insight as to why they've been doing it wrong all these years. Even if you think you have, you should run it past the community first before making sweeping changes.

Because this breaks bike routing, I'll revert this changeset unless I hear any other compelling reasons asap.

Hi Kyle,

Great to see the work you've been doing!

In a developed country like the US, we'd usually assume highway=secondary to be a paved road. Being able to judge the surface correctly is particularly important for vehicles (e.g. road bikes) which are unable to use non-paved roads. Here's an example of where it's important - https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=1mr&page_id=579972&v=5W where the cyclists had to walk for 2km because the surface wasn't tagged in OpenStreetMap!

So for a road like Stony Hollow Road (way/15879615), the current mapping of highway=secondary is a bit misleading unless there's a surface tag.

Could I encourage you to add surface tags to unpaved roads you edit? surface=gravel or surface=dirt would be great, but you can be less specific with surface=unpaved if it's easier.

All the best
Richard

Hi - you've added access=permissive to several ways in Blenheim based on private arrangements you have with Blenheim. This isn't appropriate - access=permissive means "permissive access for everyone", not just for one company. I'll change it back to the correct values.

I'm guessing it was probably a case of seeing a tarmac bit at the intersection, but unfortunately the way changed character quite drastically across its full course! I split it yesterday so it should be a bit more aligned with reality now.

surface= tags are a really good way of differentiating for the right bike :)

Think you missed a surface tag off 13182286! Just noticed cycle.travel was routing a Trans-American rider along a rubbishy dirt track :(

(2015, not 2005. This is ancient history but not _that_ ancient ;) )

Thread way back in 2005 in which a clever chap for whom I have the utmost respect posted "These relations could probably be truncated to just the diverging aspects":

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-January/014115.html

Hi - good to see the mapping you've been doing in this area! Is this an officially signposted cycle route?

As the changeset says, I was working from a previously uploaded GPS trace (not mine) but no doubt someone local can review - I'd suggest you add notes to that effect.

Cool. I'd suggest the talk-gb list rather than the wiki pages - OSM discussion generally doesn't happen on wiki pages in the way that it does in Wikipedia.

(I think I've done those already so it's probably ok)

cheers! :)

It's a bit more than a "recommendation", it's accepted practice for the past 10 years - if you think it should be changed then by all means do raise it on (say) the talk-gb list and see what people think, but just changing a few routes from their long-established status without notice will break (and indeed has broken) existing clients.

The convention in the UK is that NCN National Routes, Regional Routes and Local Routes do not have a NCN/RCN/LCN prefix. Other networks (Quietways, Cycle Superhighways, and cf also the National Byway) do. I wouldn't be averse to new network= tags for these networks (which is where the information really should be kept) and the recent sprouting of networks in London does make quite a strong case. But, again, you'd need to get community consensus on that, especially given that network values outside the usual ncn/rcn/lcn list are unlikely to be parsed by many existing clients.

Hi,
Great to see the work you've been putting in on editing cycle routes!
We don't tag the refs with 'RR' or 'NCN'. The ref should just be the number. The regional/national status is contained in the network= tag (i.e. 'rcn' or 'ncn').
cheers
Richard

Pas de probleme. :) J'ai "reverté" la relation. (C'est trop facile de faire les gaffes comme ci avec JOSM...)

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/60609678 where the changeset comment is: Revert accidental deletion

Hi Sigo - is there a reason why you've deleted the bike route relation? // Pourquoi avez-vous supprimé le relation La Régordane (véloroute V70)? relation/5247546/history

Richard