<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi</p>
<p>On <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans</a> the first line is '<b>Sustrans</b>
is a UK walking and cycling charity and custodian of the <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cycle_Network"
title="National Cycle Network">National Cycle Network</a>.'
Custodian is the important term.<br>
</p>
<p>The Sustrans website
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/national-cycle-network-design-principles/">https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/national-cycle-network-design-principles/</a>
does not make that claim (please correct me) but the whole of the
site suggests it is the custodian and that they make decisions
about the NCN.</p>
<p>As Sustrans is described as the custodian and its website
infers/implies that it is, then unless a route is on their website
or literature it is not part of the NCN. OSM does not have the
right to make a decision like that no matter how good the
intentions.</p>
<p>So please do not tag as ncn; but please keep as a route.</p>
<p>As the route is tagged mtb I think that it may not meet the
design principles as shown on the referred Sustrans page.<br>
</p>
<p>Tony - TonyS999<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/07/2020 11:34, Adam Snape wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKw83WR=UZr34m9-jQ06vddmMcTFr3ivSCByfKe3D9Bizzagjg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to
OSM and there has been a difference of opinions in the
changeset comments <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341</a>
.So I thought I'd share here to try to achieve some community
consensus.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Personally I'm concerned that it appears to be an
undiscussed import without explicit copyright owner
permission, possibly containing OS-derived data. It goes
against the general principle that we only map what's on the
ground, potentially opening the floodgates for all kinds of
such unmarked routes. The route is tagged as ncn despite not
being part of the National Cycle Network and as a mountain
bike route is largely unsuitable for general bicycle routing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does anybody have any further thoughts? I'll make the
original mapper aware of this discussion.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kind regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Adam<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>