Changeset: 111666933
Clarifications around Christs Hospital station
Closed by mygrove
Tags
changesets_count | 1 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.20.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
ideditor:walkthrough_progress | welcome;startEditing |
ideditor:walkthrough_started | yes |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en |
review_requested | yes |
Discussion
-
Comment from matt_ellery
Hi mygrove, thanks for your edits. Adding access=no to a way is only used if the general public are explicitly prohibited, so it's definitely not appropriate for this public bridleway. What were you trying to clarify re: the access?
---
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111666933
-
Comment from mygrove
There appeared to be a problem with routing along the DownsLink north of Christ's Hospital station. I was accessing via ridewithgps.com and it takes a long detour off the track by road. It behaves like there is a break in the track.
-
Comment from SK53
Hi mygrove,
Please dont fiddle with access tags to fix a routing problem with an app. Often apps will be using older data, or may just have bugs in the consumption of OSM tags (highway=bridleway is a common one, particularly if the app is written by developers elsewhere).
A quick check on the RideWith GPS website suggests that ways tagged with highway=bridleway with no specific bicycle access set are ignored. Graphhopper also seem to have this myopic view of bridleways. A UK-based cycle router such as cycle.travel does not.
The correct action would be to ask RideWithGPS to fix this bug in their access rules. I've sent such a comment through to them via their website.
When you change the access you can affect 10s of apps many of which may have been working perfectly. The app you are using may not update for another month or so, so you wont even see if you have fixed an issue or not. In particular it is now impossible to do any diagnosis of your original problem, because you have potentially affected routing for everyone (as well as caused the way to be virtually invisible on the main map). I have therefore reverted your changes so that we can really work out what the problem might be (which is probably adding bicycle=designated to the ways).
Sorry to be a bit shirty, but I seem to have spent an hour on this & I'm a bit disgruntled!
Yours,
Jerry aka SK53
-
Comment from mygrove
Thanks, that's perfectly OK. Perhaps there is a better way to flag this point as a problem for some experienced person to investigate.
-
Comment from mygrove
If you follow route 223 (DownsLink) around the station some of the segments are not designated "bicycle" at all or as "bicycles" in the "allowed access" table. Is that the problem?
-
Comment from SK53
NCN 223 implicitly means bicycle=yes or bicycle=permissive, but some routers may not use this information and may need it on the ways. Leave it for a bit, I'm asking other experienced mappers about this. The issue is that fixing it here doesn't fix it for any other bridleway.
The access is a bit complex here, S of the railway it appears to be legally a public footpath, and the bit through the old station isn't even on the West Sussex Rights of Way map (see Map the Paths which helps find rights of way missing from OSM https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.05093034480947&lon=-0.36507251053827583&zoom=4&mode=0).
-
Comment from matt_ellery
The way from Railway Cottages under the Arun Valley line was recently converted from a footpath to a bridleway as part of the work to extend the offroad section of the Downs Link (see v5 of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/412925868/history - a bridleway fingerpost has been installed since then).
-
Comment from matt_ellery
Thanks for the research & revert work Jerry.
-
Comment from mygrove
Thanks for that clarification @matt_twam_asi. Guys, is that enough to update the classification of these ways?
-
Comment from SK53
@matt_twam_asi: do you have a link to the PRoW modification order? West Sussex website is not particularly forthcoming. I also found this regarding the section across the old station http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/cttee/row/row230209i7.pdf
-
Comment from matt_ellery
@SK53 no, I tried an failed to find anything when the footpath signs were removed. I have re-surveyed today (see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Downs_Link_fingerpost.jpg) and updated the bridleway tags in changeset 111767131.
-
Comment from SK53
That looks good enough!
Ways (6)
Relations (2)
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 |