<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="">I think we have some very over enthusiastic mapping of cycle infrastructure here. There are some ‘unbuilt’ routes correctly mapped as ‘proposed’ but again I dont’ think this should be on there as it fails on a number of counts <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- it’s not yet officially designated (and thus strictly not legal)</div><div class="">- it’s not *useful* as there is no signage or markings to follow</div><div class="">- it doesn’t exist in any ‘readable’ form on the ground <br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=rookery road#map=18/51.46037/-0.14241&layers=C" class="">https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=rookery%20road#map=18/51.46037/-0.14241&layers=C</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I an ongoing discussion (that I’m just about to add to) on routes marked only with 1057 symbols as well.<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 13 Jan 2021, at 15:51, Chris Hodges <<a href="mailto:chris@c-hodges.co.uk" class="">chris@c-hodges.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class="">Optimistically proposed and prematurely mapped routes can be a
real problem - I've had one supposedly going across school playing
fields (Bridgnorth) and one with barbed wire and big "keep out"
signs near Weston-super-Mare. The latter has apparently been
planned for 10 years but the land owner's "over my dead body"
might be almost literally when it gets built according to locals.</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">They shouldn't make it onto the map until they exist on the
ground - and I wonder how they did (your example and my WsM one).
In Bridgnorth I made the mistake of believing a sustrans PDF - OSM
shows a footpath round the playing field (correct) and a gap in
NCR45 (incorrect, it goes along North Gate; I should be able to
fix that from my tracklog)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115073493#map=15/52.5378/-2.4115&layers=C">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115073493#map=15/52.5378/-2.4115&layers=C</a></p><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">I'd apply some caution updating all paths even in a single local
authority's parks. They often encourage it in some parks but not
others - a per-park basis might be suitably cautious unless
they've published something more general. Even with blanket
permission I wonder what they expect when it's physically
difficult (kissing gate etc.)<br class="">
</p>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>