Cześć,
Tutaj Andy z Grupy Roboczej ds. Danych OSM. To, że istnieje oficjalny dokument, nie oznacza, że rozpoczęto budowę drogi. I odwrotnie, to, że zdjęcia lotnicze sugerują, że budowa drogi jeszcze się nie rozpoczęła, nie oznacza, że tak się nie stało – zdjęcia lotnicze mogą być nieaktualne.
Sugeruję, aby jedno lub oboje z was faktycznie odwiedzili to miejsce i wzięli telefon (możesz to łatwo zrobić i dołączyć do notatki OSM za pomocą StreetComplete).
W ten sposób dowiemy się tego na pewno.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Just because an official document exists, it does not mean that road construction has started. Conversely, just because aerial imagery suggests that road construction has not started yet it doesn't mean that it hasn't - the aerial imagery may be out of date.
I'd suggest that one or both of you actually visits the place and takes a phone (you can do this easily, and append to an OSM note, with StreetComplete).
That way, we will know for sure.

Great, thanks!

Great, thanks!

I know that node/1602070477 was 11 years ago (!), but I wonder if it is actually what is now way/372776872 ?
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
The deletion of node/254212144/history seems to have created a gap in a number of relations, including node/254212144/history . I'm presuming that these roads do actually join up here?
Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

I've now updated NCN1 so that the "new" route here (as far as it is currently mapped) is now in relation/15975674 . There are still a couple of "not yet mapped in OSM" gaps around Hull. One is:

relation/15975674#map=14/53.7250/-0.4237

is somewhere where Sustrans think they have two braids (OSM's most recent contributor here added the eastern braid), but there's still a gap that may or may not be signed. Another is:

relation/15975674#map=15/53.7506/-0.4386

Again, Sustrans think there are two braids (here OSM's most recent contributor here added the western braid), but there are still gaps in both that may or may not be signed.

For completeness, this part of NCN1 relation/15975674 is part of a superrelation relation/1992599 .

Hello,
I think that your "remove self intersection of way" here has created a gap in the Nene Way relation/85093#map=18/52.23058/-0.93171 and Norbital relation/1620344#map=18/52.23050/-0.93125 . Previously they connected through the car park - see e.g. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1BOk .

Oops! Wrong account. This sort of change normally done from @SomeoneElse2 .

This also removes way/1213130136 as a duplicate outer (the boundaries around the island are already outers). It also patches some unrelated route relations around relation/5479823#map=17/53.22412/-4.19076&layers=H .

The usage of from and to like this already fits with how the ECP was done previously here. Parent routes of these are superroutes, so there should be no confusion over "which is which".

Great - thanks!

Hi,
I've updated NCN1 - see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-October/030760.html for info.
Cheers,
Andy

Hi,
I've updated NCN1 - see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-October/030760.html for info.
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
Has node/1098186560/history re-opened again? It currently is both "amenity=pub" and "closed:amenity=pub". Your last changeset on it was "Updated a number of commercial premises that have closed/changed use" so I figured that you were the person to ask!
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks - I've filled in the gap in the route relation as well so there is no longer a gap at relation/10800125#map=19/51.89964/0.87404 .

Re "figuring out how to remove the relation without deleting a much bigger relation" - the way that the "remove" button is shown in the iD editor does look like you're removing the relation, but you're not - you're just removing the way from the relation.
If you click on another way in the relation afterwards you should be able to check that it is still there (and if somehow it isn't, you can always click "undo").

There also are places where what is on Sustrans' own maps is "just wrong" - it doesn't match the signage placed by Sustrans volunteers and it doesn't match the route that a cyclist would actually take there. There was an attempt by a Sustrans volunteer to correct some of these - see this from February this year: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-February/030104.html (Ian Dent is a Sustrans volunteer from around Derby, he's popped into some of the virtual OSM East Midlands meetings we've had).

One other thing to bear in mind is that since https://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-us/paths-for-everyone/ Sustrans have removed some "on fast road" routes from their national network, so there may be some gaps - although (looking at Sustrans' own maps, which unfortunately I don't think are licence-compatible with OSM) there don't appear to be any such gaps in Aberdeen.

With National cycle routes, I tend to update them to show where the signage actually points, or (if that is "obviously wrong") where a sensible cyclist who is following the route would go. From looking at relation/254838#map=18/57.15397/-2.10009 , as a non-local I don't think I can really help, except to say that there are plenty of places where (say) northbound traffic goes one way and southbound traffic another.