I went down today to have a look at this.

The signage on the lamppost on the island clearly indicates this is the route of the Purple Pedalway.

The path is 3m wide and therefore meets the design standards for a shared use path. It is simply overgrown with brambles at the moment so only half of the path is useable.

Cyclists use this route. Two people cycled across the island while I was there.

There is no signage saying this is shared use. Equally there is no signage saying you can’t cycle.

It’s on the route of the Purple Pedalway (the outer ring).

The only signage is on the lamppost on the island. There are stickers facing in both directions indicating this is the route of the Purple Pedalway. If this section were not cycleable you would think this would be indicated.

Signage of cycle paths – and the Purple Pedalway in particular – is poor. For example, where the section of shared-use path along Tollgate Way starts at the roundabout with Dodderman Way there is nothing to indicate this is the start of a shared-use path. (There are blue shared-use roundels along the path.)

This section of the route is shown on the Norwich Cycle map produced jointly by Norfolk County Council and Norwich City Council. Wherever there is an issue with a section of route (i.e. where you have to dismount) this is indicated on the map. There is no such indication shown here.

The Norfolk PROW map appears to indicate that this strip of land is owned by NCC Highways?

I use this route regularly. It is substandard, like much of the cycle network in Norwich. However, I believe it is intended to be shared use.

Asphalt is, as I understand it, a more generic term. I’m not sufficiently qualified to know the difference between that and bitmac.

I see that surface=bitmac is rendered as a dotted blue line, which usually indicates an unpaved surface. Should this be changed to render as a solid blue line?

EV12 should follow the same route as NCN1.

Minor edits made under changeset changeset/117823363