Hi,
None of the cycle lanes added in this large changeset are correct.

In each case, either the cycling infrastructure is already mapped as a separate cycleway or as cycleway:left

As an example, osm.org/way/12109461#map=19/51.52868/-0.01649&layers=Y has a stepped cycle track that is mapped as separate cycleway, but you've further added non-existent cycle lanes on both sides of the road.

Traffic on the approach roads do have right-of-way when they have a green signal at this junction and traffic on the "roundabout" have to give way to them (at their red signal). Therefore this is not a junction=roundabout.

See osm.wiki/Tag:junction%3Dcircular:

"The tag junction=circular is used only on road intersections where traffic on the junction does NOT have COMPLETE right of way."

"Where traffic on a circular junction itself does have complete right of way, this is a roundabout. The tag junction=roundabout should be used on roundabouts."

At osm.wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout:

"A roundabout is a... road junction where the traffic on the roundabout has ALWAYS right of way."

It mention, "There CAN be traffic light, as long as the circular road has right-of-way". In other words, if there were only 'non-junction' traffic signals on a roundabout (e.g. for a pelican crossing), then it would still be a junction=roundabout.

The station entrance is opened but the rest of the building is still fenced off (including the Oxford St side) as construction seems unfinished above the station entrance.

Hi. I've removed what I'm sure would have been errant extra tagging with 'node=2133959589' from 4 areas of grass (in osm.org/changeset/120430257).

Hi. The errant tagging has now been removed.

Thanks for pointing this out, Daniel.

I've now fixed the error gap here.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. I've changed Vallentin Road to oneway=no.

The road has new a 'no entry' restriction at its west end (buses + cycles are exempted). This is already set as a pair of turn restrictions.

General motorists can still enter at the east end of the road, travel westwards almost to the end of the road and then do a u-turn and exit the same way they entered.

Hi. I've corrected the turn restriction osm.org/relation/13933331 into 2 separate 'no left' + 'no straight ahead' turn restrictions (except cycles).

I can see that you've now resolved this issue.

Thanks. These are all now removed.

Hi,

"crossing=toucan" is not an approved tag for a crossing with traffic signals. See osm.wiki/Key:crossing?uselang=en-GB#Approved_tags

"toucan" is only valid as a value for "crossing_ref". See osm.wiki/Key:crossing_ref

Since osm.org/changeset/115290764 the extent of the relation for "EV1 in Spain" also included the Ireland section of the EV1 route.

This was due to a circular reference within the osm.org/relation/2763798 parent relation, with this relation wrongly being included as a submember of one of its child subrelation (Spain's EV1 superrelation).

There's definitely been a realignment of osm.org/relation/11815403.

The cycleway is fully constructed, but is just not officially accessible yet.

Hi. I think it's a bit premature to consider this barriered cycleway as being officially open. See https://853.london/2021/10/01/deptford-creek-roads-4-2m-cycleway-4-will-not-open-until-at-least-march-council-admits/

If you disregard the barriers, when cycling westbound the 'route' comes to a particularly unsafe cul de sac, with no cycling crossing.

Eastbound is a lot less unsafe, but the (functional) cycle lights for crossing osm.org/node/6552004400 are kept covered up. Also, I doubt anyone is daring to use (or even move the barriers at) osm.org/way/697668255 - I think the planned cycle lights might not even work here.

In terms of previously existing cycle routes, the only two-way route that could really be made safely would be the NCN21-NCN4 link to the east of osm.org/node/6552004401. The unstarted work that is holding up the opening of the cycleway is along this section though.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. This now now been moved back.

Yep. I'd sent you a private message mentioning this. You had also mapped the 2 links here as a single (i.e. 'continuous') route which isn't the case.

Agree. I've changed this to a cycleway now. I didn't notice any dropped kerb on the QEOP side to merit tagging as a cycleway at that end though.

There is some work going on at osm.org/way/850658623 which is currently closed. Possibly the steps there are being converted to a ramp, but I didn't survey the work.

Ah, I see. Interestingly https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/en/request/breakdown_of_100km_of_cycle_lane does list 0.5 km of Loughborough Road as 'New or upgraded cycle routes delivered or are under Route length construction'.

Also, https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s117177/Appendix%201%20Covid-19%20Transport%20Strategy%20Programme.pdf#page=8 projected just 2 weeks of work in 2020 for whatever was planned here.

I'll re-tag this with state=proposed.

Here's a map of the London Cycle Network as it was in 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20040529124642/http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/uploaded_files/library/documents/LCN_MAP_2004.pdf

The relation (13400058) for this LCN route can be viewed at https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=13400058 and is tagged with "cycle_network=GB:London Cycle Network".

Signage along the route is a mixture of council signage (which includes segment/links that are not part of the National Cycle Network) and Sustrans' NCN stickers. Along London's NCN4, it is a local network route, a national network route and an international (EV2) network route... but signage-wise all three are represented by the same 'ref=4'. As far as I'm aware, there is no actual signage for EV2 in the UK.

Within London, Route 4 of the National Cycle Network is also Route 4 of the London Cycle Network. A separate subrelation was needed to represent the section that is part of the LCN, and this includes a segment in Putney that has been dropped from the NCN.