Hi, I've tested with StreetComplete and can see that for some reason the app completely ignores "cycleway=shared" tags, which are used on roads the entire width of which are shared with vehicles. These can be signed in UK with either a blue rectangle sign or with cycle logos.

"cycleway=shared_lane" is the tagging where a designated individual lane
(rather than all of that side of the road) is shared with vehicles. Example: a 4-lane (2+2) two-way road where the outer 2 lanes have cycle logos but the central 2 lanes don't. I can see why StreetComplete automatically adds "cycleway:both:lane=pictogram" tags as the blue rectangle sign isn't used in this instance.

https://goo.gl/maps/rZVHEMqMMSbKShWe7 is an example of a "cycleway:right=shared_lane", and https://goo.gl/maps/AqwEejHgyzyq35CQ8 of an eastbound "cyclewayleft=shared_lane".

In the case of osm.org/way/8562574#map=19/51.54183/-0.05674&layers=Y, this shows on the CyclOSM infrastructure map as having an 'outside LANE' on both sides of the road that cyclists share with vehicles. Howerer, this road (https://goo.gl/maps/JA3o2QzKBNkvqofP8) doesn't even have any lane markings!

Apart from having inaccurate tagging of the infrastructure (that I realise StreetComplete prompts people to add), the "cycleway:both:lane" tag here makes no sense as there are no lanes.

Unfortunately in the last year or 2 the TfL conflation has mistagged lots of the cycling infrastructure in London, but I suspect StreetComplete is now compounding this with further mistagging.

Sorry, this was a temporary relation I was working from in JOSM that was never meant to have been uploaded. I have deleted it now.

Hi. The only relation is this changeset that is tagged for TfL's "network=rcn" is osm.org/relation/12668707 and this is tagged as a proposed route/network, as it will definitely be a future route. I'm not convinced that the solitary sign for it at https://goo.gl/maps/b3FpfCDXXkH7okfN6 was ever meant to actually go up though. A 2-way cycle track at the Forest Gate had been planned possibly >3 years ago now and this might be all that's waiting to be done for the route.

(The TfL map has never shown much of the proposed routes and has multiple errors on its open routes too.)

The current network=lcn routes between Maryland + Forest Gate that do show up on OpenCycleMap have been part of the London Cycle Network for years, but this network is separate from TfL's newer network.

Thanks. Was supposed to be foot=yes, which I've now added to the gate.

Although there's a kind of one-way is in play around here, it's only due to 'no entry' signs rather than actual one-way signs.

e.g. One-way signs were put in for osm.org/way/997686334 but the rest of Wellington Row (as with the 'false one-way' for motorists on Colombia Rd) is only 'no entry'.

This is all complicated by the Mayor of Tower Hamlets wanting to rip out the changes made around here.

Hi,

I've removed the time turn restriction here. It used to exist but applied to the left tun into Richmond Rd. It was removed when a LTN was introduced on Richmond Rd, and there is only a 'diagram' sign here now giving advanced notice of the road closure further on if turning left.

height value was changed in osm.org/changeset/65073955.

Best to ask the question again in that changeset.

Hi. There isn't any formal connection connection here, presumably deliberate as it would have been an obvious thing to do when (or after) the (now dead-end) old main road got bypassed.

It is possible to climb a grass bank (up + then back down) to get from the old road to the higher level newer road, but I would consider this to be too much of a barrier to less agile people to merit mapping with a routable path.

Hi Warin61.

I've had a look at this changeset and I can't find the duplicated tagging that you're referring to.

The two trees were removed by accident. I have restored them now.

Hi. I've added a 'via' node that was missing from the 2 turn restrictions you'd added.

Hi, Are you sure that cycling is no longer permitted on e.g. osm.org/way/393242439?

LMCU:NOM_ARRET et LMCU:OBJECTID ont été ajoutés à osm.org/node/1670199377, une partie de osm.org/changeset/14247809

Yes, correct. I've now reversed the oneway direction.

True, the changeset comment is inaccurate. However the change to the junction tagging is valid, as there is a give_way on the 'circular' at osm.org/node/1294552639 that you had tagged.

Hi,
The X1 relation has nothing to justify its former "public_transport:version=2" tagging.

Its ways were not ordered (although I have improved this) and it uses invalid (in PTv2) "forward/backward" roles. (Of lesser relevance it also has no stops.)

Crucially though, this relation combines the 2 directions of travel into 1 relation, so it should never have been tagged as a PTv2 relation.

Ideally, and with a little bit of work, it could be converted into 2 x PTv2 route relations for the 2 directions of the route.

Without creating a 2nd relation, the only way to make this particular relation valid (for one direction of travel) would be to remove ways that are only used in the opposite direction of travel.... but this would then lose valuable information.

Hi. There is a give_way at osm.org/node/2730892177. Therefore it is not a junction=roundabout

Hi. This way is definitely correctly tagged.

There are some details on the introduction of the shared use here in a 2014 article at https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/01/20/hackney-council-pavement-cycling-trial-victoria-park. Although this was introduced as a trial (as far as Wetherell Rd), it was never removed (or improved upon!)

A few years ago, a shared use sign beside some tactile paving (https://goo.gl/maps/LC6F5Hn1sJdR3GSJ9) was replaced at the NE end of this way by a large Controlled Zone sign (this is actually just inside the TfL 'red route'), but this pavement is still a shared use path.

To the SW, there is signage at the next junction (https://goo.gl/maps/u6Aehcgp9PSMi6QNA) for cyclists from Homer Rd who have a dropped kerb to access the pavement. There are at least 8 further shared use signs along the pavement between this point and Gascoyne Rd, plus more signs down to Wetherell Rd.

In practice, this all serves as a night-time detour for cyclists when Victoria Park is closed. As it is shared use, it is not oneway although SW-bound cyclists still have the option to use the road which has some of its pre-trial lanes. (However as mentioned in the article, "Victoria Park Road is a designated ‘A’ road used by heavy goods vehicles and buses.")

Despite being low quality infrastructure, I suspect it never had too negative an impact as it is seems to be mainly used at night + by a small number of cyclists. It's also not a busy pedestrian route at any time of day.

Re standard landuse practice, I'd direct you towards the wiki at osm.wiki/Land_use#1._Mapping_the_reality_on_the_ground:

"For example to map the land use of a school draw the edge of the shape following the boundary of the land that is used by/available to the school; to map a residential area include land that actually belongs to the houses and their gardens/private driveways.

Land that is dedicated to the public highway (both the carriageway and the pavement/verge) is not land that is available for other uses i.e. you can't build a house on it, and so it shouldn't be mapped as such."

Thanks. This is now corrected.