<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">
<div dir="auto">Robert Whittaker wrote:<br />
> Sustrans' NCN data is available from<br />
> <a href="http://livingatlas-dcdev.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/54a66fa3c15d4e118e085fbd9b141aae">http://livingatlas-dcdev.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/54a66fa3c15d4e118e085fbd9b141aae</a><br />
> as vector tiles under the ODbL. However, note that the "removed"<br />
> sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the<br />
> dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where<br />
> the route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that<br />
> some of the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and<br />
> will quickly be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.<br />
<br />
It's in friendlier formats at <a href="https://data-sustrans-uk.opendata.arcgis.com">https://data-sustrans-uk.opendata.arcgis.com</a><br />
:)<br />
<br />
Many of the changes are fairly unambiguous and could be made directly<br />
using this data as a guide. For example, the Wiltshire Cycleway is no<br />
longer NCN 254, so can be changed to network=rcn and the ref= tag<br />
removed. The parts of NCN 20 between Crawley and the outskirts of<br />
Brighton can be removed entirely from the relation. And so on.<br />
<br />
There are a few cases where it's not immediately clear what will<br />
happen to the route - in Shropshire, for example, where several routes<br />
are being reclassified or removed. In these cases then we can probably<br />
make tentative changes but will need to keep an eye on the ground for<br />
signage to see the future fate of both these routes and other nearby<br />
ones (which might be renumbered?). And, as you say, there may be
<div dir="auto">some small gaps that have inadvertently arisen.<br />
<br />
I would also encourage people to look carefully at the sections that<br />
are being removed, and consider whether the way tagging is appropriate.<br />
It's plausible that there are some highway=unclassifieds in there that<br />
would better be highway=tertiary. It would also often be helpful to<br />
add a lanes= tag.<br />
<br />
> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be<br />
> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes<br />
> that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?<br />
<br />
Precedent is generally that non-Sustrans routes are network=rcn, even<br />
long-distance ones like the National Byway. I'd suggest we continue to<br />
follow this for most redesignated routes. The alternative would be to<br />
retain as network=ncn and make use of the operator= tag, but (being<br />
blunt) this will probably not be understood by most mappers apart from<br />
the small hard core of us who really care about cycle route designation,<br />
so it will be broken repeatedly and end up as a maintenance burden.<br />
<br />
One slight nuance is what we do about redesignated sections of a long-<br />
distance cycle route. For example, Hartside will no longer be part of<br />
NCN 7 or NCN 68, but will continue to be part of the C2C and Pennine<br />
Cycleway. The answer is probably to maintain two separate relations,<br />
which is a bit of a maintenance faff but at least understandable.<br />
<br />
Richard<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>