Changeset: 74898477
Added NCN 254, some minor cleanup of junctions along route.
Closed by xinaes
Tags
changesets_count | 1 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.15.5 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-GB |
review_requested | yes |
Discussion
-
Comment from xinaes
I recently followed a route generated by cycle.travel, incorporating some of 254. I found that 254 was marked along the wrong roads at the Salisbury end, so set about amending the data as appropriate (so that other people hopefully wouldn't be lead up the grim section of road I had to endure).
As I edited, I was surprised to find that the appeared to be no relations at all relating to this route. I have now added what I believe to be a correct set of such. What confuses me now, is that when viewing the 'Cycle Map' layer outside of edit mode, I see the faulty version of the route displayed.
I don't understand where this data is coming from. I suppose it may be that at some point an incorrect version was added, and then completely removed, but remains in some level of cache used in displaying the Cycle Map layer. Either that or I have misunderstood how that layer is generated.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
(prompted by comment at https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62399/edit-cycle-map-layer ).
Hello,
I think that there might be a bit of duplication here. NCN 254 seems to be in OSM as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/138421 , and a new relation has been added here as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10075430 ?
Best Regards,
Andy -
Comment from SomeoneElse
(from followup comment) actually, as they follow different routes it's entirely correct to add a new relation. You'll just now need to extend the new "254" relation so that it includes all of it and remove the ref "254" from the Wiltshire Cycleway.
-
Comment from xinaes
Some sections of Wiltshire Cycleway are I believe wrongly tagged as "network: ncn, ref: 254", and this is where the error on the Cycle Map view originates.
-
Comment from xinaes
(didn't notice previous comments before posting that last one)
I believe my new 254 relation does include all of it, and that as you say ref "254" should be removed from Wiltshire Cycleway. Also, network "ncn" is incorrect for Wiltshire Cycleway - I think indeed it may be a network unto itself, which happens to frequently intersect NCN routes. I'm less confident that I know how this should be specified. - Comment from xinaes
-
Comment from Richard
As I understand it, the Wiltshire Cycleway is NCN 254 for its whole circular length, excluding those parts which are coincident with other NCN routes (e.g. NCN 45). Certainly the Wiltshire Council and Sustrans websites think so, and the sections I've cycled (e.g. near Malmesbury) have been signposted as such. Google Street View is obviously not an admissible source for OSM, but a quick gander just now suggests that my memory isn't mistaken and that the route around Malmesbury, at least, is signposted as NCN 254.
That obviously doesn't preclude the route being wrong in OSM (e.g. at Wilton)! But as I understand it, the Wiltshire Cycleway and NCN 254 are intended to be the same.
So the new relation is incorrect, I think. I'd suggest reverting NCN 254 to its previous state, and if you're really keen, creating a new Wiltshire Cycleway relation (route=bicycle, possibly network=rcn) which encompasses NCN 254 and also the linking sections on NCN 45 etc.
If you want clarification from Wiltshire Council (whose route it is) then you can contact Heather Blake there - I'm loth to put email addresses online but she's at @wiltshire.gov.uk with the format they usually use. Certainly I know she's keen for the information to be correct in OSM. I'm at a Sustrans meeting in a few weeks which I think she might be attending, so if I remember I'll check with her then.
-
Comment from xinaes
Apologies for verbosity of following. I'll try to review and make the appropriate changes here soon - find it a little ambiguous how the relation should be best expressed, especially being new to OSM editing.
I see from street view that South Street out of Wilton is indeed signed as both Wiltshire Cycleway (WC) and route 254, and the wiltshire.gov.uk complete route map key marks them as being equivalent. However, the map of section 6 of WC that I'd previously referred to makes no mention of 254, hence my not realising the relation - particularly given that my other encounters with WC signs have been on parts mostly-but-not-always coincident with different NCN routes. E.g. route 4 around Devizes -
north from Coate I recall missing a turning on NCN 4, but was still on WC, 'Vale of Pewsey' route, which is not part of NCN. Looking at the wiltshire.gov.uk complete route map, there are bits which on the ground are signposted WC, but are labelled only as NCN. So I think my slight confusion about WC:NCN correspondence, and belief that WC was more of a network than a single circular route is somewhat justified.It seems that the signage around Wilton is right but the maps are wrong. The complete map and section 6 detail from wiltshire.gov.uk both share the same error (as does the Wiltshire Cycleway relation here) of marking it as going south from Quidhampton rather than Wilton, which strengthened my belief that coincidence of NCN & WC was more coincidental.
I rode this leg on my way to End of the Road festival, on my birthday, and it was a decided low-point of an otherwise joyful day, so I'm quite keen that it gets fixed and am glad that it appears to be about as trivial as it could be.
I had emailed transportplanning @ wiltshire earlier, but will send another to Heather, along with a link here and better understanding. Hopefully this text is still coherent after way too much editing.
Thanks for your input.
-
Comment from Richard
I think that the shared-use path in Wilton, along Salisbury Road, postdates the original Wiltshire Cycleway (perhaps a Sustrans Connect2 project?) - and it's that which has enabled the route to be rerouted away from the A3094 and onto South Street. So it's quite plausible that OSM and the Wiltshire PDFs are just reflecting the previous route.
-
Comment from xinaes
Sounds plausible indeed. Worth noting here that it remains a short missing segment in route 24 as per both OSM and OS. It is signed on the ground, though (as route 24, not WC I don't think). Possibly not as clearly as it might be around the roundabout.
I've made another couple of edits which should restore the ref: 254 in WC relation and correct it's routing as discussed.
Ways (5)
Relations (2)
Nodes (3)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |