thank **** for that

Wow - just spotted this incredibly detailed bit of mapping. Hats off!

Nice work! Just spotted this on the Rails-to-Trails group on Facebook and wondered if it had been mapped… delighted to see it has :)

Thanks \o/

I suggest maybe using a proper editor like iD instead of JOSM which is well-known for breaking data like this

<runs away very very fast>

Joshua - you need to fix your router. Blacklisting barrier=* will fail unexpectedly in lots of other places: for example, the edges of central London had anti-terrorist barriers (actually just little checkpoint booths) which were tagged as barrier=checkpoint nodes for many months.

The only way to parse barrier= nodes is to blacklist a defined list of values and assume everything else is ok. Believe me, I've been through this with getting cycle.travel's routing working. :)

Hi Lewis,

Great to see the edits you've been doing!

In this one you (accidentally I guess) deleted a cycleway alongside the road. This means that it's harder for bike maps and routing sites to show the best way. In particular, it's broken the continuous route of National Cycle Network route 8 (the cross-Wales route, Lon Las Cymru).

Generally you should be reluctant to delete stuff from OSM - it's usually been put there for a reason even if that's not obvious! You can leave changeset comments like this if you want to ask an editor what they were doing.

I've fixed the NCN 8 cycleway route for now.

Best wishes
Richard

I'm not aware of any convention in the UK that "request stops" are always tagged as railway=halt. The UK railway system doesn't really have a clear distinction between station and halt as some other countries do.

(FWIW a station can't really be a "request stop" because stopping by request is an attribute of a train service rather than of a station. Usually if one service stops by request then all do, but it's not always the case!)

Hi - you've added a lot of place=town nodes here, but they don't really seem appropriate for the features in question and they duplicate existing information. For example, there's already a place=village name for Cranberry - you don't need to add a duplicate place=town. Because these are small places they're better mapped in OSM as villages.

Could I suggest you revert the changes?

Best wishes -- Richard

Hi Roland,

The statement is at https://www.eurovelo.at/en/ev7.html .

Although lifecycle prefixes are reasonably common for amenities etc., they aren't in general use on route relations - only seven occurrences worldwide according to https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=proposed%3Aroute . As such they aren't understood by data consumers that parse route relations.

Ah good - I didn't spot that bit from the train :)

Reinstated type=route.

Hi Roland,

In this you've changed the type tag from "route" to "proposed:route". This isn't standard tagging for route relations - it should be type=route, state=proposed.

Is it really the case that all of the route in Austria is only proposed? According to the RadLobby EV7 website, "The Austrian section of EuroVelo 7 is signposted as 'EuroVelo7' everywhere apart from the province of Upper Austria." So I'd think it should be predominantly type=route.

Let me know.

Richard

OSM is rarely 100% consistent :)

From my point of view (I run cycle.travel) it's not actually OpenCycleMap's rendering that's the issue - OCM shows route=mtb anyway. The problem is more that most _routers_, including cycle.travel, use route=bicycle as a flag that "this is a good way to route an ordinary bicycle along". That isn't really the case for some of the gnarlier bits of the Great North Trail!

I've changed it to route=mtb already so no need to do any more work on that.

I would suggest you do need to get clearance from CUK for the route to be entered into OSM though - they may assert copyright over the route (this isn't that unusual for route creators) and we can't have it in OSM if the creators don't give permission.

I've changed it to route=mtb, unsigned=yes.

This shouldn't really be in OSM I'm afraid. If we were to tag unsigned routes invented by some well-meaning sort then we'd have the complete collection of Cicerone guidebook routes and so on. Long-standing precedent is that we do not map these in the UK.

The route is also potentially copyrighted by Cycling UK ("freely available" does not mean free of copyright).

At the very very least it absolutely shouldn't be route=bicycle, network=ncn, which in the UK is used for National Cycle Network routes suitable for most bicycles. route=mtb is the correct tagging for a (waymarked) route like this.

I think that the shared-use path in Wilton, along Salisbury Road, postdates the original Wiltshire Cycleway (perhaps a Sustrans Connect2 project?) - and it's that which has enabled the route to be rerouted away from the A3094 and onto South Street. So it's quite plausible that OSM and the Wiltshire PDFs are just reflecting the previous route.

As I understand it, the Wiltshire Cycleway is NCN 254 for its whole circular length, excluding those parts which are coincident with other NCN routes (e.g. NCN 45). Certainly the Wiltshire Council and Sustrans websites think so, and the sections I've cycled (e.g. near Malmesbury) have been signposted as such. Google Street View is obviously not an admissible source for OSM, but a quick gander just now suggests that my memory isn't mistaken and that the route around Malmesbury, at least, is signposted as NCN 254.

That obviously doesn't preclude the route being wrong in OSM (e.g. at Wilton)! But as I understand it, the Wiltshire Cycleway and NCN 254 are intended to be the same.

So the new relation is incorrect, I think. I'd suggest reverting NCN 254 to its previous state, and if you're really keen, creating a new Wiltshire Cycleway relation (route=bicycle, possibly network=rcn) which encompasses NCN 254 and also the linking sections on NCN 45 etc.

If you want clarification from Wiltshire Council (whose route it is) then you can contact Heather Blake there - I'm loth to put email addresses online but she's at @wiltshire.gov.uk with the format they usually use. Certainly I know she's keen for the information to be correct in OSM. I'm at a Sustrans meeting in a few weeks which I think she might be attending, so if I remember I'll check with her then.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/74540505 where the changeset comment is: Revert changing through roads to driveways

Hi,

I can't see way/706085473 (Sycamore Hollow Rd) on imagery anywhere - is it a newly constructed road?

Richard