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

[Gregory Williams]

I put some of that NCR17 mapping in. NCR17 has changed alignment over
time, but has also had issues with bad signing.

I've removed some bits that I know are now wrong. I suspect that the
portion in west Maidstone around Poplar Grove to Queen's Road is also
wrong, but I think that there have been odd signs here that incorrectly
suggest that it is NCR17. I seem to recall Maidstone having some signs
that confused "17" and "(17)". I.e. is *on* vs. *leads to* NCR17.

I've copied Maidstone Cycle Forum, as they should be know their patch
better than me! Perhaps they may be able to advise about the Medway
portion too?

Gregory

On Thu, 2022-01-13 at 13:28 +0000, Chris Hodges wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb