Hi - in this changeset you appear to have removed the new route of NCN 46 north of Beaufort and Brynmawr, close to the Heads of the Valleys Road. I cycled this the other year and it was signposted as NCN 46 throughout. Could you reinstate it?

Hi - you've changed the towpath between Bascote and the Long Itchington greenway bridge from highway=footway,bicycle=yes to highway=cycleway. My recollection from boating along here the other year is that significant parts of it are unimproved (i.e. just a narrow unsurfaced path) and that describing it is a "cycleway" is a little misleading. Has this changed?

It has already been explained to you repeatedly that rural unimproved towpaths are not highway=cycleway. STOP IT.

It's on the OCC public highways map as a metalled road "Maintainable at Public Expense", and there's no conflicting PROW status, so I don't see any compelling reason to have it as anything other than highway=unclassified. (It would be lovely if it were a cycleway though!) OS's decision to show it as an ORPA seems strange.

Hi Mikey - this is one of my local roads! I think this was better as it was previously, to be honest. Motor vehicles are not forbidden from using the road (and in fact they do use it - it's popular for people driving to do a walk around Ditchley) so motor_vehicle=no is inappropriate. There is a legacy "Unsuitable for motor vehicles" sign, which dates from before the road was resurfaced, but this isn't a legal prohibition.

There is some usage in OSM of motor_vehicle=discouraged and I could see an argument for this, but at present anyone seeing an OSM-based map would expect this to be a traffic-free road, and it certainly isn't.

You can revert a changeset using https://revert.monicz.dev . You will need to know the ID of the changeset you want to revert - you can see all your changesets at @NCN%20updates/history

No it isn't. Whatever is shown on OS Maps, which has numerous visualisation flaws, is beside the point.

We map what's on the ground, and what's on the ground is blue signs for a regional cycle route. Therefore it is tagged as network=rcn. Please revert this back to the correct state before I have to take this to the Data Working Group.

(Whoops - I do of course mean that you've changed it from network=rcn to network=ncn, and that it should have stayed as rcn!)

Hi - in this changeset you have changed relation/8495916 from network=ncn to network=rcn. This is wrong. This is a regional route (numbers on a blue background) and as such is tagged with RCN, not a national route (numbers on a red background) tagged with NCN. NCN 51 runs from Oxford to Cambridge and into East Anglia, not in Devon.

Could you fix this change and any other similar ones you've made? Thank you.

> apologies if one has slipped through and I'll double-check this particular changeset to put it back

Fixed: way/659232442/history

Hi! Many apologies for any asphalt to paved change - I try to avoid that, but apologies if one has slipped through and I'll double-check this particular changeset to put it back.

highway=unclassified is generally used in OSM for minor roads of a principally rural nature, whereas =residential is intended for residential roads in built-up areas.

There is (famously) a long-standing issue in the US in that the TIGER import of 2007/08 brought in all A41 class roads as =residential, largely as a placeholder for future use. The TIGER import was famously problematic and fixing its many issues is a long-term project, to put it mildly. (As documented on the OSM wiki: "The large scale TIGER data input of United States street data overused the highway=residential tag. A significant proportion of these roads could be tagged as highway=unclassified or highway=tertiary under the guideline mentioned above.")

Something like the example you give, or way/17166426 for another one, is much more akin to highway=unclassified in standard OSM usage than =residential.

This is also going to absolutely wreck cycle routing. Saying that the Grand Union towpath (which is a muddy mess most of the time) is built to highway=cycleway standards, rather than highway=footway, will lead to apps directing people along an entirely unsuitable path.

I have asked DWG to revert this and other changesets given that mrpacmanmap appears unwilling or unable to read the comments left on his edits.

This appears to re-add into the NCN 54 relation a section that has been removed from the NCN by Sustrans. Could you clarify why you have done this?

This is absolutely disastrous. You have overwritten large amounts of correct information. Bike access on most towpaths is permissive - by permission of the Canal & River Trust. It is not by right and it is not "designated".

(Also - the Coventry Canal as part of the BCN? Really?!)

This is not a signposted cycle route and does not belong in OSM.

Aaaaargh.

Towpaths are _not_ necessarily bike routes. Significant parts of the route you have included here are not suitable for cycling - the notion of anyone cycling along the towpath at Hawford would be funny if it wasn't actively dangerous. On some sections it's expressly forbidden.

By tagging these using the standard meant for signposted, promoted, reviewed cycle routes, you are causing bike routers to send people along completely unsuitable paths.

I am probably going to have to remove these in bulk. _Please_ consult the community before making massive changes to existing practice like this.

Hello,

You've changed way/1221176941 from railway=dismantled (trackbed doesn't exist) to railway=abandoned (trackbed exists).

The trackbed clearly doesn't exist because it's over a river and the bridge has been removed.

Similarly way/470454741 .

I have changed these two back to railway=dismantled but could I suggest you review your other changes in case this has happened elsewhere?

Including me for keeping big changeset open

Hi - this change is incorrect. The Montgomery Canal is not open to boats throughout this entire length.

Hi - when you're making these changes, could you ensure you retain the ref= tag on the relation? Thank you.