<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
This is useful. Thanks<br>
<br>
The two main discrepancies in my locale are <br>
<br>
1. One way routes, which appear to be all Sustrans' lack of detail.<br>
2. Entrance paths onto old railway lines/towpaths. Although
technically within Sustrans' maintenance remit, I never considered
them to be a part of the linear route, so won't be tagging them as
NCNs.<br>
<br>
Could you add the standard OSM-Carto layer as an option, maybe even
black & white, as I'm finding the cycle layer can obscure some
of Sustrans' data, such as links. <br>
<br>
DaveF<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/02/2023 20:45, Ian Dent wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:12427e86-fc3e-3a74-b1bb-bcfcd74deb63@dent.org.uk">
<p> </p>
<p>I’ve been on a campaign to get the accuracy of the Sustrans
National Cycle Network improved for quite a while now and have
made some progress in engaging with Sustrans.</p>
<p>I’ve found that the NCN plotted on OpenStreetMap differs in a
number of places from that in the Sustrans mapping.</p>
<p>I’ve created a coarse visualisation of the differences – see <a
href="https://dent.org.uk/sustrans/sustrans-ncn-inconsistences/"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" moz-do-not-send="true">https://dent.org.uk/sustrans/sustrans-ncn-inconsistences/</a>
- which, by focusing on the thick red and blue areas shows which
areas to investigate in detail. Note this is a snapshot at Feb
23 and won’t reflect any changes in OSM or Sustrans data until I
update it. Also note it is intended to show where to focus and
some of the smaller focus areas may be errors in how I’ve done
the mapping.</p>
<p>I know the Derbyshire NCN fairly well and have found that most
of the discrepancies are due to errors in the Sustrans data
rather than OSM and suspect this may be the case across the
country. </p>
<p>Sustrans have gone through a process of removing some of their
routes and “reclassifying” others (i.e. not being responsible
for them in the future). I’ve excluded these removed and
reclassified sections from the map and the comparison with the
OSM even though a lot of the routes still appear in OSM as they
still have signage on the ground. I’m taking advice on what to
do about removed and reclassified routes and will post a
separate note on this subject later.</p>
<p>I’m keen that Sustrans internally review the discrepancies and
make changes to their mapping when it is in error. I’ve had some
success in discussions but it is a slow process! There is
discussion about involving the Sustrans volunteer force who are
very geographically spread and will have local knowledge.</p>
<p>I’m also keen to understand how best to communicate the
discrepancy areas to people within the OSM community with local
knowledge and who can, where the OSM is in error, make the
necessary OSM changes.</p>
<p>Discrepancies are for various reasons including:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>mismatches on how the route is mapped (the map shows
differences of 10 metres or more).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Routes that Sustrans have classed as regional but OSM as
national (or vice versa). e.g. NCN 30 south of Lowestoft,
NCN 568 on The Wirral</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>New Sustrans routes that haven’t yet reached OSM – e.g. NCN
28 east of Plymouth</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Routes that Sustrans classes as “links” but OSM has as NCN
– e.g. NCN 28 near Dartmouth. I think these are generally
Sustrans errors.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Routes that OSM have included as NCN but which are not part
of the Sustrans network. e.g. NCN 627 north of Sheffield,
NCN 422 near Wokingham</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Some ferries are included as routes in OSM – e.g. NCN 2
near Plymouth</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Sustrans data for the NCN can be found at <a
href="https://data-sustrans-uk.opendata.arcgis.com/"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" moz-do-not-send="true">https://data-sustrans-uk.opendata.arcgis.com/</a>
(Open Government Licence). Note that a lot of this isn’t
accurate so don’t take it as gospel – on the ground survey is
needed.</p>
<p>I’ll continue to work with Sustrans to try and get their errors
improved. I’d appreciate advice on how to get the OSM community
to consider the discrepancies and fix any OSM errors found
(local knowledge needed).</p>
<p>Thanks to those who’ve already discussed this with me –
particularly the recent East Midlands OSM meeting.</p>
<p>Ian<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></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>
<br>
</body>
</html>