[Talk-GB] UK cycle route: NCN National Route 17 (21895) in Kent

[Chris Hodges]

I'm not local so can't comment on that specific route, but it is 
plausible for a few reasons:

- Some routes really do start and stop in silly places because land 
access negotiations have stalled. Sometimes in multiple places.  NCN33 
in Somerset is like that, with work finally beginning on connecting it 
to NCN26 and Clevedon after over 10 years of proposals and talk.

- Sustrans have been removing branding on (and support for) routes that 
don't fit their rather arbitrary standards.  This can leave gaps - or 
sections that have NCN numbers but aren't put of the NCN (according to 
their own map https://explore.osmaps.com/ncn hosted by OS which I used 
to use as part of my route planning but don't trust)

- That same map doesn't always reflect reality as it ever happened, nor 
does it match the signs, which also don't match reality. We can and do 
make a better job of it in places.

For example  NCN 45 into Bridgnorth from the north is correctly mapped 
on OSM (following the signs with a little interpolation where they're 
missing) 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=bridgnorth#map=14/52.5333/-2.4153&layers=C 
but some odd sections that don't join up with anything are also mapped.  
They match Sustrans's own mapping, except that OSM is more sensible and 
doesn't show a route going across a school playing field, near but not 
following a public footpath. Some signs exist on those disconnected 
sections.  I think they had NCN route numbers on them when I was there, 
but I've also seen route numbers covered up


A glance at Sustrans's map of the Maidstone area, without detailed 
inspection, suggests that much of what looks wrong could be right or at 
least official, but not all the disconnected sections match that map.  
But I wouldn't trust it to be right, as well as the obvious licensing 
block on the data, i.e. even if it was allowed, copying the "official" 
data would increase the errors


Chris


On 13/01/2022 11:24, Andy Townsend wrote:
> This seems a bit odd:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21895
>
> shows a couple of disconnected sections around Maidstone and an odd 
> spur towards Chatham.
>
> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/21895
>
> suggests that at least one of the Maidstone "extras" has been there 
> since 2008, suggesting that it's not a recent faux pas.
>
> I suspect that given the number of avid cyclists on this list that 
> someone will be immediately able to say "actually that's wrong" or 
> "actually, that's correct because..."
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb