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 :)

Hi,

Please don't change bicycle=unsuitable to bicycle=no - they're different things. bicycle=unsuitable is not a very good tag but =no is actively wrong in this instance.

cheers
Richard

Thank you :)

Hi - I think you added an erroneous 'access=private' to Troy Road in this changeset. I've fixed it but you might want to check your workflow for future edits.
cheers - Richard

Hi - why have you marked this road as private?

Hi! This is definitely not a route=bicycle - it breaks common expectations for what that is. It's a route=mtb. If you need it to show up prominently on a particular map rendering then please contact the people who run that rendering.

Hi - great to see the work you're doing. A quick heads-up - if you map a stile, it should only be on the path, not on the road. Putting a node near the junction and tagging this as a stile will achieve this. I see this one's already been fixed but you might want to keep an eye out in the future!

I've reverted as much of this changeset as could be done automatically (in changeset/103251722), but several ways had been subsequently edited so will need to be mended by hand.

@US Editor, your intentions are great and thanks for your commitment, but we don't use the name= tag for descriptions like that - it's purely for the actual name of the road. OSM isn't just about the display map you see on www.openstreetmap.org; although your change might look good there, it will break other consumers of the information such as routers or data analysis.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/103251722 where the changeset comment is: Revert edit which added a description to the name tag

Hi,

You haven't cut out the islands from the polygon. This means that for anything which renders water above land, the Channel Islands will now appear submerged. Could you fix this please?

Hello - could you tell me what evidence you have that cycling is permitted on this path?

Oh, when you said "is the bridge over the A48 in use?", I thought you were referring to whether the bridge over the A48 was in use. Mea culpa.

way/49287116/history