mjr wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 12:39pm
Yes, it's the case. Sustrans base their maps on Ordnance Survey, which of course shows legal status more reliably than most OSM renders but does not show more practical matters like surface, status or route name. I do not know of any recent editing of OSM by Sustrans.
Ordnance Survey maps do not show the legal status of a path, they give an indication of the status but only the definitive map and statement held by the highway authority shows legal status, OS maps have a disclaimer on them for this reason
Indeed, but MJR didn't state that. OS use the definitive map, but as you note with a disclaimer. OSM use??????
OSM use our own surveys, traces of satellite imagery and, where made available, data dumps from the definitive map keepers. Someone (Ian maybe?) posted a link to a list of data sources earlier in this discussion.
I only said OS was currently more reliable on legal status, not that it was perfect or authoritative. There always seems to be someone on this site wanting to argue with anything
OSM is better on surface types, barriers and non-Sustrans cycle routes, which matter more to me.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe wrote: ↑16 Oct 2021, 1:06pm
With so many using mapping apps that use/based on OSM mapping and with OS generally requiring a subscription I find it quite amazing that Sustrans are not embracing (or even updating) OSM. Particularly as it's free so far more accessible! (and Sustrans should be about accessibility).
Ian
You can also buy OS map(s) nd download that map onto a phone. Millets sell OS maps cheaply and often you can get a further discount. The downloaded map isn't updated though. Depends what you need though.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Ordnance Survey maps do not show the legal status of a path, they give an indication of the status but only the definitive map and statement held by the highway authority shows legal status, OS maps have a disclaimer on them for this reason
Indeed, but MJR didn't state that. OS use the definitive map, but as you note with a disclaimer. OSM use??????
OSM use our own surveys, traces of satellite imagery and, where made available, data dumps from the definitive map keepers. Someone (Ian maybe?) posted a link to a list of data sources earlier in this discussion.
I only said OS was currently more reliable on legal status, not that it was perfect or authoritative. There always seems to be someone on this site wanting to argue with anything
OSM is better on surface types, barriers and non-Sustrans cycle routes, which matter more to me.
OSM frequently shows paths where there is no right of access. Using both OS and OSM can be helpful.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Psamathe wrote: ↑16 Oct 2021, 1:06pm
With so many using mapping apps that use/based on OSM mapping and with OS generally requiring a subscription I find it quite amazing that Sustrans are not embracing (or even updating) OSM. Particularly as it's free so far more accessible! (and Sustrans should be about accessibility).
Ian
You can also buy OS map(s) nd download that map onto a phone. Millets sell OS maps cheaply and often you can get a further discount. The downloaded map isn't updated though. Depends what you need though.
I did some years ago (brought OS mapping for East of England). The app I was using then accepted/supported both OS and OSM. After a bit I switched to OSM as I preferred it (personal choice, no right/wrong). These days many of the available apps are based on OSM mapping hence I'd expect the majority of app users are OSM based hence my disappointment that Sustrans don't maintain their network on OSM.
MikeF wrote: ↑16 Oct 2021, 8:01pm
OSM frequently shows paths where there is no right of access. Using both OS and OSM can be helpful.
OS also shows many private tracks (black single or double lines). On OSM, you can query objects or enable the map data layer to check if a path is designated by law, if the visible layer doesn't make it clear (some don't, including the default I think). I don't know how you do that on OS.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
MikeF wrote: ↑16 Oct 2021, 8:01pm
OSM frequently shows paths where there is no right of access. Using both OS and OSM can be helpful.
OS also shows many private tracks (black single or double lines). On OSM, you can query objects or enable the map data layer to check if a path is designated by law, if the visible layer doesn't make it clear (some don't, including the default I think). I don't know how you do that on OS.
OS does show other tracks, but usually those with right of access are generally correctly indicated. OSM seems much less reliable in that respect; a better scheme of indication would be helpful.
Edit to add
The query feature of OSM frequently shows misleading and/or incomplete information, especially regarding legal status.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Pete Owens wrote:
[...] plenty of time to sort the signs in Gretna to point to the direct route on what is now (horror of horrors) a quiet road.
SUSTRANS wrote:
Why have some sections of route completely disappeared from the map?
Where the on-road sections we’ve identified in this process do not form part of well-loved named routes, or are on roads where motor traffic is simply too busy and fast, we have removed them from the online mapping.
In some cases we have also removed sections because they duplicated other sections, they were left isolated by nearby removals, or they added little value to the Network.
MikeF wrote: ↑16 Oct 2021, 8:01pm
OSM frequently shows paths where there is no right of access. Using both OS and OSM can be helpful.
OS also shows many private tracks (black single or double lines). On OSM, you can query objects or enable the map data layer to check if a path is designated by law, if the visible layer doesn't make it clear (some don't, including the default I think). I don't know how you do that on OS.
OS does show other tracks, but usually those with right of access are generally correctly indicated. OSM seems much less reliable in that respect; a better scheme of indication would be helpful.
Edit to add
The query feature of OSM frequently shows misleading and/or incomplete information, especially regarding legal status.
Incomplete yes, but it should not be misleading and normally should trace back eventually to a source.
Still one up on OS which does not even have a query feature.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑15 Oct 2021, 4:21pm
Something in the NCN must be working: this is just a few hundred metres futher on route 74 / B7078 from where Pete Owens linked to https://goo.gl/maps/BcDDRYZJiXYuNjdx5
If you look through 360 degrees, you can see two pedestrians, three cyclists but only one car. This seems to me like one little vindication of protected cycling and walking facilities (or whatever you want to call them).
No it just shows if you replace a long distance road through sparcely inhabited countryside by a motorway then you will remove most of the motor traffic and the original road will become ideal for cycling. The existence or not of a seperate path is irrelevant (it is there because there was a carriageway left over, not because that was deemed nescessary). Just as the narrow cycle lanes on other stretches just represent the bits of tarmac surplus to requirement when they only had one carriageway to play with.
Of course if you are going to claim that a picture of a cyclist riding on a cyclepath as evidence that they are only there due to the existence of route 74 then presumably this is a scene we won't be seeing in the future: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.1341267 ... 384!8i8192
Maybe Sustrans is keen to expunge the route to stamp out such deviant behaviour.
The two examples are hardly comparable.
The two examples are entirely comparable - they are both stretches that used to be part of the A74 that are now ideal to cycle on due to virtually all the motor traffic now using the Motorway. Of course to the powers that be, the thought of cyclists as legitimate road users is anathema so cyclists are directed to farcilities marked in the spaces that are now surplus to requirement for motors. Whether this was done at the insistence of Sustrans or by the highway authority, their existence is entirely down to the availabliy of surplus tarmac on which to paint cycle symbols - and nothing whatsoever to do with the needs of cyclists. If cyclists needs had been the reason then they would have built a cycle track decades ago when those road did carry very heavy traffic from which segregation would have been justified.
The first is a reasonably wide cycle lane, built or rather rebuilt with cycling in mind. It's not ideal – has too many silly give ways and could probably do with being a bit wider
And this illustrates perfectly the anti-cycling bias of the segregationst traffic engineers.
Nothing - absolutely nothing - has been built for the benefit of cyclists in that example. The farcility is a tad wider, only because there happened to be more left over tarmac to play with and vegetation has had less time to encroach. But, remember the starting point was a whole wide two-lane carriageway - identical to the road it is now parallel to. The only things that have actually been done to it are to narrow it down to a minimum width shared use path and paint all those give way signs - the very faults you highlight.
I suppose it could be worse - they could have resurfaced the cycleway with loose chippings and erected barriers along the route. Perhaps the budget ran out after all the works to reduce the width.
I suppose it could be worse - they could have resurfaced the cycleway with loose chippings and erected barriers along the route. Perhaps the budget ran out after all the works to reduce the width.
The barriers came years later in 2010 when the wind farms put access roads in off Beattock Summit. That section was/ is maintained by AMEY and placed a black painted barrier without any reflectors across the route. I stopped within an inch of my life on first encounter. The emails were blue but no sympathy, understanding, or action from AMEY. Still there to this day yet I’ve still to see traffic on and off site after the initial construction.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
