I've now added these tags.

I'd be a little surprised if work on the proposed cycle tracks has already been done, but I agree the Commercial Way junction might well be worth the survey.

If you get the chance, there is a planned pathway realignment/straightening (osm.org/way/567718774) that could be worth keeping an eye for, although I don't expect this has been worked on yet.

The railway=station is an interchange station with 6 platforms but, as far as I understand it, platforms 3 + 4 are not for access to public transport.

Platforms 1 + 2 (suburban service) are part of a stop_area that has e.g. a different "naptan:AtcoCode" to the stop_area for platforms 5 + 6 (national services). Previously these stop_areas were mapped as 2 separate 'Wembley Central' railway=station, but there is a common entrance to the interchange station here.

If the 2 'public_transport=station' stop_areas were meticulously mapped as areas, then neither area would include platforms 5 + 6... but these platforms would still be part of an accurately mapped railway=station area.

Thanks. I've now removed this station=subway tag. The station node is also now a member of the 2 stop_areas.

Regards, Mac

Hi,
The point I was trying to make is that the London Overground should be in the same WMBYDC stop_area as the London Overground - they both use platforms 1 + 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Central_station actually states "Wembley Central is an interchange station" rather than 2 distinct stations.

Also National Rail uses platforms 5 + 6 of this interchange station, rather than e.g. platforms 1 + 2 of a separate station.

For this reason I've removed the duplicate railway=station tag in osm.org/changeset/80385615 which has attracted attention at http://osm-subway.maps.me/uk.html

You might cast an eye over the tagging of the railway=station 'interchange node' at osm.org/node/7175566127 in case it's not fully/properly tagged.

As an aside, I don't see any subway entrance mapped here.

Regards,
Mac

The node on the tracks is a stop_position, and is not part of the Overground as the network tagging of this track node had implied. The previous 2 stop_areas had already been consolidated into one.

If separate stop_areas need reinstating with 2 public_transport=station tags, would it not be best to have 1 railway=station tag for the Wembley Central interchange?

Hi,
The turn restriction (restriction=only_u_turn) that you added here looks very wrong.

If you explain what you were trying to achieve with the turn restriction, I can correct it to what it should be.

Regards,
Mac

Hi,

Red is the official colour on NCN route and the background colour for route numbers on signs.

Use of colour for routes is mentioned in osm.wiki/Relation:route#Tags.

This colour tag is used by e.g. https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!51.4031!-0.2934 to set the colour used to underline route numbers.

In a similar vein, the osmc:symbol tag is used with hiking route, e.g. https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=10058046

Regarding new NCN 1 relations: there are alternative NCN 1 route sections that hadn't been mapped as part of the NCN, e.g. sections that would have to be used to follow NCN 1 when osm.org/way/605748677 is closed at night.

Also, as a relation:route should be one continuous line of travel, I've mapped branching sections of NCN 1 in individual relations where necessary. In practice, this make identifying gaps or similar errors in any type of relation:route easier.

Regards,

Mac

Hi,
I'd assume the cycleway construction here should be completed by now as someone tagged it in July 2018.

Sustrans had this mapped as a proposed section in the past. I can see they now have it mapped at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn/51.61174,-1.24531,18 as being part of NCN 5 though.

I've therefore added this section to the NCN5 relation. Rather than presuming the highway=construction tag is definitely outdated for the cycleways, I've just added a FIXME tag instead.

Mac

David, http://static.walthamforest.gov.uk/sp/Documents/chapter4-calibri.pdf#page=17 does show the Olympic route (in purple) finishing at the entrance to Epping Forest on Snaresbrook Road.

osm.org/relation/8751401 is definitely signed as a LCN from osm.org/way/380369498, but it does actually appear to be a ONEWAY link route, i.e. basically a shortcut for westbound cyclists on New Cross Road to head southwards to join onto the Crystal Palace route.

I've now added role=forward to its ways in order to tag it as a oneway route. Also I've added the relation for this short route as a subrelation (with 'role=link') of the route it links into.

Errors with routes tagged with "public_transport:version=2" get highlighted at
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=0.57186&lat=51.71202&zoom=12&overlays=ptv2_routes_invalid,ptv2_error_ways. 'Errors' would include gaps and misordering of route members, or use of role=forward/backward/etc.

It gets updated daily at about 11pm UK time.

I only rectified PTv2 bus routes, so any other bus routes here might need looking at.

Yeah, I did notice when it all got
re-added and more of less gave up on this patch!

I know the mistagging was accompanied by a lot of Wikipedia links to 'bicycle' etc. or 'name=Sidewalk', but I can see that at least some of these have been removed since. Some very small 'suburbs' mapped here too, e.g. osm.org/way/252962090

Some basic background info I have of the area if you do cycle there:
I know the area just to the south of Feltham station has had major roadwork work over the past year or so which is probably still ongoing,

A temporary footbridge over the former level crossing at osm.org/way/447285777 was built with a plan to build a proper permanent bridge nearby for pedestrians/cyclists, possibly as part of the station.

Thanks. That does make sense taking the nearby steps into account. I've now amended this and also added layer=-1 to the car park road.

Hi. 'Roundels' are clearly documented in the official https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/improving-enfield/neighbourhood-regeneration-information-ponders-end-high-street-new-junction-faqs.pdf:

"Generally these suggest that the junction is operating as anticipated,
with drivers and cyclists tending to treat each of the two new roundels as
roundabouts – hence giving way to their right - but negotiating the space with less
speed and more caution than at a typical junction, as the designers intended." Also further mentions in the 'Why are the roundels not easier to see?' section.

I'd refer you to osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout#Possible_misinterpretations also. In OSM, a roundabout has a non-traversable centre island, whereas a mini-roundabout has a traversable centre island.

As is clearly captured in https://goo.gl/maps/QdY8zFQGJM26Qras5, these roundels are traversable.

Hi Andy. The theme_park tagging was set in osm.org/changeset/6301522

I moved this node slightly when I converted the adjacent junction to a roundabout (as otherwise it would be inside the roundabout).

However I've no idea what facilities exist inside this location... but agree that theme_park would *seem* to be inappropriate.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. Are you sure this is a true roundabout, and not just a miniroundabout as that should be mapped as a node rather than as a circle?

Satellite imagery might just be out of date, but blurry Bing imagery does show a car casting a trailing shadow as it drives over a miniroundbout roundel and other satellite imagery clearly show this as a miniroundabout, i.e. with no actual physical central barrier.

If it's been converted to a roundabout, I'll do the trickier changes necessary to maintain continuity of bus routes around it, but I thought it best to double check first if it's definitely been converted to a roundabout.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. Although this is a signed route=bicycle, based on Croydon's 2018 map at https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/articles/downloads/Croydon%20cycle%20route%20map.pdf, the 213 route is surprisingly not included as part of the local cycle network.

As it was developed after the London Cycle Network was abandoned by TfL, I think the number 213 was given to it by Croydon, as they seem to use triple digit numbers there for new routes, e.g. 755 and 777 unlike the rest of London.

The route still renders on https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=7447034 etc. but OpenCycleMap doesn't render routes that aren't network=lcn/rcn/ncn and doesn't render routes with network=icn either.

It is very tempting to just tag it as network=lcn to have it render on OpenCycleMap, but unless the Croydon map hasn't just overlooked it by mistake, then it isn't strictly speaking a lcn route.

Mac

The access=no tag would infer that there is no general access, i.e. that it is closed. On the standard map this appears as a dashed grey line along the road.

I'd suggest enclosing the outline of the damaged bridge with landuse=construction (+ layer=1) to highlight the closure on the map, and if known maybe also add a barrier=fence where the road itself is closed off.

IMO highway=construction would imply the road doesn't yet exist as a feature, but as far as I know the repair work is to the support for the central arch of this bridge and the road itself does still physically exist.

Was just a temporary edit (using JOSM). Afterwards I used Potlatch (my preferred editor for drawing) to map the bus station as an area that covers more than just the building.