I made the relation purely based on osm.org/way/48016379 being named as "Stratford - Central Line - Eastbound - Platform 5".

At the time I was creating a similar multipolygon for the westbound Central Line, as http://osm-subway.maps.me/uk.html highlighted it as a validation error to have 2 platforms (3 and 3a) with role=platform in the westbound Central Line route. I combined these 2 platforms into a multipolygon for that reason.

That's when I noticed 2 platforms named as Eastbound platforms also. and assumed the platform names would be correct.

Thanks Bernard. This is now corrected.

Now fixed. Thanks

Hi DaveF,
I've done a mini update of the wiki now.

UK:London Quietways is still separate at the moment as the unified network hasn't taken effect yet. Also there hasn't been much details yet about the new 'Cycleways' network.

Hi Mike, I've now added foot=use_sidepath for pedestrians along this busway.

The signed access restriction is 'local bus only' for this road, so bicycles are not allowed to use the road.

Although there are also reinforcement signs further along the road (with pictures of motor vehicles, but no bicycle), these aren't access signs and aren't necessary for the 'buses only' restriction to apply. The wording used on those reinforcement signs however is 'no vehicles', which applies to both bicycles and motor vehicles.

Mac

Hi Bernard, I've corrected this duplication now.

Regards,
Mac

The default meaning for highway=cycleway is 'a way reserved for pedestrians and cyclists', so it's unnecessary to add foot=yes, see osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Cycle_Tracks.

However, foot=no SHOULD be added whenever the way was for bicycles only, e.g. the nearby osm.org/way/551763910

OSM used to render highway=footway differently if bicycle=yes/designated got added, but doesn't seem to do so anymore so visually the map now fails to give any additional information.

Also JOSM's validator has always recommended using highway=cycleway rather than footway wherever cycling is permitted.

Mac

That would be the correct method, yes. I'd wait for more details before using 'proposed:name' on existing routes for now though. Because the existing CS route numbers were based on a clock face design, they could spring a surprise, e.g. Cycleway 1 could yet be the future Camden-Tottenham Hale route rather than the existing unimpressive CS1.

I've been told that part of CS3 in east London has had some very recent repainting of both the blue colour and the "CS3" ref on the road, possibly 'suggesting' that the ref won't be getting changed. Re quietways, maybe Quietway 1 will just be renamed as 'Cycleway Q1'.

I get the feeling the official rebrand might be imminent, although TfL might be waiting to synchronise it with the launch of a new or extended cycle route.

I agree that they haven't formally given details of the rebrand but TfL have themselves already been referring to the future routes 4 and 9 as Cycleways - see https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/march/new-projects-to-receive-50-million-to-create-healthy-streets-across-london. I still have CS4 and CS9 as ref values for these.

That page also refers to the existing CS3 as Cycleway 3, but I didn't rename any of the existing routes.

Also the CS9 consultation page at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/cs9/ was updated at the end of Jan, stating that "this route will no longer be called a Cycle Superhighway".

Until further details are announced, I've left all Quietways as before, all 'ref=*' as before, and all route names for existing Cycle Superhighways are retained too as I had wondered if they might even have kept the same name.

All existing and known about future Quietways and mini-hollands are still in a separate network relation at osm.org/relation/6088752.

Other future main road routes e.g. 'Hackney to Isle of Dogs' weren't going to be quietways, so they have always been included in the same network as CS routes from when I first mapped them with generic 'xx cycle route" (scheme) names, so the only change I made is to now use a less generic "xx Cycleway" name, although the official names will probably be numbered 'Cycleway x'.

On OpenCycleMap, nothing has actually changed as no ref value has changed. If on another map, the cycle route names do get shown, then only the future proposed CS routes would have their names changed from the names TfL have already abandoned.

If this is a proposed route, "state=proposed" is the correct tag, not "status=..."

If this is only a proposed route, the correct tag is "state=proposed" - not "status=..."

Good point. I've amended that way now and added a service road for the parking bays nearby.

You're right, Mike, it was not as intended. I've corrected it now on this and 2 adjacent ways.

Thanks,
Mac

Sorry for the long delay in replying, Mike.

I doubt these routes have names unlike e.g. the old named "quiet routes" in Waltham Forest. Both are shown in grey on https://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mini-Holland-Overview-Maps-v26.jpg

The newer local network seems structured like a grid with east-west & north-south 'links' between the existing or new main routes. So these links might not be named if not part of some new named route.

On OSM, osm.org/relation/9114441 is now tagged as a proposed route. This route is shown on a sneak preview of the digital map promised as part of the miniholland project as being part of a route labelled as C26. This might not be the official ref for that complete route as the map is not yet finalised.

The map doesn't include the old routes. See http://appliedwayfinding.com/projects/waltham-forest-mini-holland/ for detils. Photo of map is at http://appliedwayfinding.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Pages-from-WF_Masterplan_Final_spreads_01.04.2016-2.png

The route in osm.org/relation/9114443 has been marked on the ground (with paint) as a cycle route for some time. I think road markings on Jewel Road are more recent so I extended the route along here.

Regards,
Mac

Hi Bernard. I've had a look into this changeset again and have now deleted a large number of errant nodes - osm.org/changeset/64939468.
Regards, Mac

I've instead tagged the ways with highway=proposed + proposed=cycleway. The proposed=yes that you'd used had no effect, and the cycleway rendered on the map as an open cycleway would.

Yes, it should. Thanks. Now corrected.

Sorry Jan, my mistake. The "lcn_" was meant to have been "lcn_ref".

This intent is that the "RG" text label for Redbridge Greenway would continue to be applied along this section of the Q6 route (rcn route) which has superceded it.

I've corrected this to "lcn_ref" now and have also changed the lcn value to "lcn=no", which will allow the ways involved to inherit "rcn=yes" from the Q6 relation.

Mac

Hi,

I've noticed you've changed some shared-use pavements to highway=path at Stratford. Usage of that tag seems to be intended for (multi-use) trails of low standard rather than for 'urban paths' (see osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath): "This tag is used for paths for which all and any of... highway=cycleway... would be inappropriate or inadequate (or simply not sufficient), but which are nonetheless usable for travel or navigation".

This tag would be an appropriate alternative to highway=cycleway within e.g. woodland areas like Wanstead Flats, but around built up areas like Stratford I feel this standard of shared use cycleway should have been left as highway=cycleway + segregated=no.

Regards,
Mac

Definite typo. I think layer=-33 might well be in Australia! I've corrected it now.