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

What evidence do you have that this is called Elon Musk Airport?

Hi Bernard - sure, if you know better, please do go ahead and correct it! :)

Hi! Great to see the work you've been doing.

When changing road class to =unclassified or =tertiary, please include a surface= tag to say what surface the road is. Just surface=paved or surface=unpaved is fine if you don't know anything more specific.

Generally in the developed world, highway=unclassified (or better) is assumed to be a paved road unless otherwise stated. Tagging unpaved roads without adding a surface tag means that directions apps can send cars and bicycles down roads for which they're unsuited.

cheers -- Richard

Hi Scott - great to see all the work you've been doing!

Generally in the developed world (I think Kansas counts :) ), then highway=tertiary or highway=unclassified would imply a paved road unless tagged otherwise.

Would you be able to add a surface tag when retagging roads like this? Just highway=unpaved is fine if you don't know exactly whether it's gravel/dirt/whatever.

Having dirt roads without specific tagging breaks several uses of OSM, e.g. bike routing where cyclists might be directed onto a road unsuitable for their bike/abilities.

cheers -- Richard

I've done a first pass.

@AlwynWellington this has nothing to do with path tagging at all, please stop trolling.

Hi - great to see the work you're doing. A county highway would not usually be tagged as highway=primary - that's more usually used for US highways and the like. I've changed County Highway 21 back to tertiary.

Thanks for the reply! I can certainly confirm that cycle.travel doesn't use those colour values as I run the site. :) It uses universal values for ncn, rcn, lcn and icn routes.

The issue is that I deliberately _don't_ want to render London Cycle Network routes, because they are inconsistently signed; no guarantee of a good route; in many places have been superseded; and serve to clutter the map. The code to exclude these routes looked for the value "UK:London Cycle Network"... which now doesn't work.

There is an automated edits policy for a reason - you can't expect every data consumer to monitor changes on n thousand wiki pages, particularly for sites which operate across many cities or countries. Note that the policy expressly says "it is not acceptable to cite using the wiki as justification for widespread changes to the data without appropriate consultation".

Usually I would revert the changeset, but in this case the damage has already been done and there's probably no benefit to doing so. But please do note that you have to follow the automated edits policy for any future edits like that.

cheers --Richard

Hi - did you go through the Automated Edits code of conduct for this change? (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)

I haven't seen notification of it anywhere and it's broken cycle.travel's rendering :(

Hi Pontius - it seemed anomalous to have something that isn't a state route or US route tagged as primary. More than happy to defer to your local knowledge if you think otherwise though!