<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 13 Aug 2020, at 11:41, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <<a href="mailto:robert.whittaker+osm@gmail.com" class="">robert.whittaker+osm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst <<a href="mailto:richard@systemed.net" class="">richard@systemed.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">... However, note that the "removed"</blockquote>sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the<br class="">dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where the<br class="">route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that some of<br class="">the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and will quickly<br class="">be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.<br class=""><br class="">We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be<br class="">more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes<br class="">that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?<br class="">network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and<br class="">regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.<br class=""></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>An interesting conundrum. I’m thinking about mapping and navigation in London at the moment (see blogs at </div><div><a href="https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1" class="">https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1</a></div><div><a href="https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding" class="">https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on the ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was some discussion recently about this - <a href="https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html" class="">https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html</a>)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t it remain in OSM? Conversely - how do you deal with older bits of say London Cycle Network where signs have been removed or become unreadable. For example, I recently had an extended discussion about the status of the paths in Brockwell Park in Brixton (changeset here - <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875" class="">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875</a> ) Maps showed routes and there may once have been signage but there is no longer any signage and supporting information says there is not a designated ‘route’ here. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing algorithms about the real experience of using them.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London Cycling Campaign. </div></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths, traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad, smooth tarmac good) </div></body></html>