Ok. Am I allowed to change way/453419513 too, which makes even less sense?

When you're adding service roads (e.g. way/453419520), could you make sure you add an access tag? As it stands there's no way to tell who's allowed to use this. Given that Geograph shows pretty clear access signage exists (https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1918421) I'm at a loss to think why you haven't mapped it.

(But that aside, thanks for the work you've been doing on improving cycle route data :) )

Hi,

Please don't do this - by changing MTB trails to cycle routes, you are misleading routing apps into thinking that these are good paths to send normal bikes along. They aren't!

If you think that they're not clear enough on a particular cycle map, please contact the person who makes that map, rather than breaking the data.

Hi kusweta,

Access in England and Wales works the other way round. The track is private _unless_ there's a sign (or similar evidence) to say otherwise. If the track is open to all then you would expect a signpost saying that it's a byway, bridleway, or public footpath.

At the very least I would suggest you add a 'fixme=check access' tag if you're unsure.

Richard

Hi,

You added way/842952310 in this changeset. What evidence do you have that this is a road with a public right of access, as highway=service would imply?

Richard

It has literally taken me less than a minute to find a stretch of single-carriageway highway=trunk with a 40km/h limit, and three roundabouts a few hundred metres from each other, in a mainland European country.

Maybe it might behove you to learn a bit more about OSM, perhaps do a few more edits than just 86, before lecturing others on how OSM "clearly" works. I'm (I think) the third or fourth longest-standing active participant in OSM and even I wouldn't steam into a country and start reclassifying their roads willy-nilly.

Where someone with just 86 edits decides that they know better than 10+ years of the settled community will, and decides to break numerous downstream apps without consultation, that is vandalism pure and simple.

There are numerous countries that use highway=trunk in a similar way to the UK, and frankly I have already wasted enough of my day on this ****.

Reverted in changeset/111245094 .

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/111245094 where the changeset comment is: Revert extensive vandalism to road classification that goes against long-agreed practice and breaks downstream uses

It's a very strange thing. There was some discussion on the Cycling UK forum and no one there understands it either.

I didn't use that path I'm afraid - I was going from Easter Compton to Hollywood Lane.

Because it's like that in reality - I cycled there last week.

The junction has been remodelled and now has a dedicated cycleway arm (with signs and everything). It's a really weird layout for a rural area but there you go.

The NCN signs have been removed from the relevant sections of road.

Also, NCN 4 via Easter Compton has been de-signed and removed from the network (from survey)

Hi - when you're adding private roads like this, please remember to add service=driveway, and access=no if your driver has surveyed it as a private road. Otherwise it's likely that bikes will be routed through what is private property. Thank you!

Cheers! I think the main question is whether the blue cycleway signs are still up south of Capel.

Hi! I realise this is a very belated followup but hoping you'll see this...

I went this way the other week (by car) and don't recall seeing any cycleway signs any more. It looks to me as if there were cycleway signs at one point but they've since been removed, probably because the path is borderline lethal.

Could you confirm? If that's the case then we can downgrade it to a footway, which is probably for the best. (There was a bit of Twitter controversy about this path recently: see https://twitter.com/GeorginaWilcox/status/1420155730758414339 )

cheers
Richard

Hi Gordon,

Great to see all the work you've been doing. I'm a little confused about this one - is this a signposted cycle route?

Aaargh, bugger, forgot to close one changeset before starting the next. Apologies.

Quick note - the route should have a "link" role as part of the wider NCN 45 relation, otherwise it'll be considered part of the main NCN 45 route. I've fixed it in this case.

Yeah, hopefully you might let me off forgetting to press 'C' to close changeset one time out of 14,435 edits over 15 years. If you're feeling particularly generous :)