[Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Warin]

On 21/12/19 02:55, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
> Having unexpectedly found myself with a spare hour,  I have had a go 
> at amending NCN 51 in central Milton Keynes.
>
> There are 3 Changesets involved:
>
> #78646743. The main changes. I marked this to be reviewed,  but I do 
> hope that nobody wants it reverted because I got a bit carried away.  
> As part of the edit I had to correct a one-way road that isn't really 
> one-way,  but I then carried on resolving issues flagged by the iD 
> editor; sorry!
>
> #78651993. Mopping up. After the main edit, I spotted a few ways that 
> I had not removed from the relation, so removed them here.
>
> #78647795. I have flagged some ways with "fixme". They were part of 
> the old route, but now form a spur off the main route. I have asked 
> Sustrans whether they consider the spur to be part of NCN 51 and await 
> their response. I could tag them with "approach", but I'm not clear 
> whether that would mean that all >1000 other ways in the relation 
> would then have to be tagged "main ".

I would think 'main'; is the default role - so no need to state it.

And yes I would add the roll 'approach' to the spur off to the train 
station.


>
> Open for comments / suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>
>     ----- Forwarded message -----
>     *From:* "Peter Neale" <nealepb at yahoo.co.uk>
>     *To:* "Talk-gb OSM List" <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
>     *Cc:*
>     *Sent:* Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 13:54
>     *Subject:* Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route
>     Relation - NCN Route 51
>     Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for
>     their encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the
>     amendments using the iD Editor.
>
>     I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that
>     Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time
>     with their families, not on the computer.
>
>     Before I start, I have one more question:
>
>     @Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is
>     unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route
>     without unnecessary branches and loops."
>
>     However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably
>     to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other
>     cyclepaths).  There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on
>     the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but
>     the other is not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked one,
>     but what about the one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?
>
>     Regards,
>     Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20191221/d7e4a1f1/attachment-0001.html>