Reverted by changeset 72987308

Reverted by changeset 72987040

Reverted by changeset 72986734

Reverted by changeset 72986348

Reverted by changeset 72986082

Reverted by changeset 72985780

Reverted by changeset 72985516

Reverted by changeset 72985177

Reverted by changeset 72984701

Thanks for pointing out. Now corrected to "access=no"

I'm not convinced there's rendering issues with the LCN network at . I've not seen their map before, but the LCN network currently renders as blue/green dots and light blue labels on their map.

The cycle_network tag that I introduced was changed 2 months after an update of the Wiki page for cycle_network ('osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Key:cycle_network&diff=1849158&oldid=1846536') pointed out that I should have used the UK’s ISO country code of GB, not UK. The Wiki update had been changed to show 'cycle_network=GB:London Cycle Network' for 2 months and I had discussed this with the other mapper who used this cycle_network for LCN routes.

My inkling is that your issue with cycle.travel's rendering is that it uses the colour value used in e.g. osm.org/relation/6230031 to render the colour of the Cycle Superhighways. This previously was in Barclay's darker blue colour even though the official colour has been Santander's red for around 4 years. This colour clashes with the NCN routes' shade of red. But this is the correct official colour for Cycle Superhighway, as documented at http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-colour-standards-issue04.pdf. The upcoming rebrand to Cycleways is likely to change the official colour but it hasn't yet been announced, although the first Cycleway signs (on C31) are a shade of lime green.

It's not that far from me to head round to check it out, in the next few days hopefully.

I had an inkling it might be ready to reopen and actually checked the west end of both the Greenway and the other path last Friday but both were still closed off then.

I was thinking something along the same lines but not sure how best to do it. It kind of is public_transport but not sure if cycle rental schemes like this are meant to be included in public_transport.

The "local" tag has already been in use for many of the docking stations so I used that for now just for consistency, but I agree there must be a better tag to use that "local" and functionally some grouping of local docking stations could possibly be made use of within map apps.

stop_area and stop_area_group could well be the way to go, but not sure about public_transport... maybe a type=bicycle_rental + bicycle_rental=stop_area could be used?

I wouldn't usually do this, but the 2 stop areas here were already created as "public_transport=stop" (not 'stop_area') relations that had different "ref:bkk" tags.

I assume these "ref:bkk" tags could be applied to the stop_position nodes, but I didn't want to do that here as I didn't know for sure what these ref values mean.

Presumably so. However I haven't seen the newly opened route so I can't comment on the surface along it.

It seems that the footway and cycleway are physically separated too for most of the route, so the 2 should really be mapped as separate ways.

Sorry, ignore the question above as I just realised that T4 isn't light_rail.

Hi. I agree. I had another look at the station and also noticed a public_transport=station area that you created, osm.org/way/679354513. For relations, I've now used that area instead of the (now deleted) node osm.org/node/6571334825.

I've also created a stop_area for T4 stop/Platforms 24/25 at osm.org/relation/9774952 that you might have a look at.

Is it reasonable to have a separate railway=station node osm.org/node/5692089433 for the light_rail trains? I suspect it is, but I don't know if the location of the T4 platforms should maybe mean a shift of the light_rail station node eastwards is needed.

Hi. You added "status=proposed" to osm.org/relation/9131355 last month, but the correct tag is "state=proposed" (if this route is a proposed route.)

I'd refer to osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential#Separation_from_roads: "Some mappers split residential areas into blocks that do not contain any streets; others restrict such splitting to major thoroughfares, and still others draw one big residential area around a whole town (which is considered preliminary by the majority of mappers)"

You seem be be advocating the latter for the area. The prior retail area included the wooded area across the road from the co-op which is completely inaccurate.

Apart from considering such large landuse areas as preliminary, my main reason for splitting this area was because it would make the cycle tracks and footways less hidden on the Carto map and this is part of a future Quietway route.

In my opinion the large residential and retail landuse areas that cross the A238 (Coombe Lane) west of this changeset might look consistent... but don't look good at all (from a pedestrian's perspective).

The wiki page has a 'This article or section contains questioned, contended or controversial information' warning but it does refer to different uses in different countries.

Unlike many other countries, UK doesn't have different access restrictions for trunk/primary/secondary roads, so a 'biggest road type' rule in the UK is not required (this rule is only needed for a motorway_link).

At osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#UK_roads, 'A-roads... (signed black on white)' should be tagged as highway=primary_link (as done in this changeset). A trunk_link would be one that is 'signed yellow on green'.

On a map this visually does make it easier to work out where to turn off at junctions like like one.