This was given the title “National Cycle Network - Route 66 Marker” which is categorically untrue. It’s possible this is a misunderstanding by the submitter.
If you see a sustrans route number in parentheses, then this is a direction marker for how to get to that route and it means you are not currently on the route. This is a direction marker to get to the trail not a trail marker. I think that generally direction markers (go this way to get to something) are not eligible, so these are masquerading as something they are not.
I am seeing plenty of submissions making claims that this is a route marker. Please be careful about accepting these.
For evidence, please compare the location of the submission with the sustrans map
I see quite a lot of submissions claiming that they are NCN numbered routes when in fact they are just local numbered routes, still potentially eligible but not part of the National Cycle Network. NCN signs should be blue with a number in white on a red backround.. National Cycle Network - Wikipedia
I will reject on the grounds of an inaccurate title if it’s a local route but the submitter thinks it is an NCN route.
Some of these are short feeder links ( 100m or so) that’s more of a directional sign.
But they are official NCN markers so encouraging following a route. There is a stretch I know of that goes for about a mile, all signed as normal but bracketed. It’s a mix of an alternate routing and a feeder route. That seems to me to not be unreasonable. Some of the alternatives are there to facilitate a wider range of users or seasonal variations ( away from muddy paths and on tarmac) So I don’t think it’s always clear cut. I tend to look at not just the sign but bigger picture.
