Talk:National Byway

Link Routes

sign located here pointing south.

How should these be tagged?

Also are all the loop routes only signed in one direction? Trying to follow them backwards is a pain, especially as they only appear to have no straight on signs only left or right. Arrive at a cross roads and all you get is a sign pointing where you have been. --Thewinch 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe route=national_byway, national_byway=link?

And yes, the loops are one direction only - generally anti-clockwise, I believe, so that there are fewer right turns. Strikes me as a bit silly too. --Richard 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Relation size, etc.

"Sorry, the data for the relation with the id 9327 9327, took too long to retrieve." —— I fear we are getting to a point at which a relation has become too large. I propose splitting up the relation into a few; maybe based on regions encountered. I recently discovered, on my very-usual commute home, that some lovely chap has put up National Byway signs right into my village; what a nice man—anywho: I'm going to go ahead and add the appropriate ways to a new relation, (a) because I think the current 'main' route relation is too large and (b) the route through South Cambridgeshire falls off the 'main' route… whichever bit of the route that is. This, of course, being a network mainly comprising of one long zig-zaggy route through the United Kingdom, but now has extensions of yellow and green tiger tail variety and of solid yellow. Kevin Steinhardt 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of splitting it into the regions, although it would need a "super relation" I think to bring them all together. That said, the loops have their own relations so perhaps we need one now anyway - one per region and its loops, and 1 for the whole lot Seventy7 22:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as we group the relations by rcn=national_byway, etc., I see no need for a super-relation—but I get where you're coming from. Kevin Steinhardt 20:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Implicit grouping by tag (e.g. network=national_byway) works for me. Glad to see the Byway is making (slow) progress towards completion. --Richard 15:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New Relations, relation naming and so on?

The wiki page suggests that relations are being created for various sections, one of which is the "National Byway in Rutland" (which seems to include part of Leicestershire and a bit of Lincolnshire as well), ending just S of Colsterworth.

My question is, do I stick my new bit on the end of the "Rutland" section so that it becomes more like an "East Midlands" one (to match the National Byway web site's own divisions) or create a new one for Lincolnshire and move the Lincolnshire end of the "Rutland" section into that?

I've stuck "network=national_byway" on the ways concerned already.

SomeoneElse 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)