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, way/679354513. For relations, I've now used that area instead of the (now deleted) node node/6571334825.

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

Is it reasonable to have a separate railway=station node 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 relation/9131355 last month, but the correct tag is "state=proposed" (if this route is a proposed route.)

I'd refer to landuse=residential#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.

I made the relation purely based on 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 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 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 "osm.wiki/Tag:status=..."

If this is only a proposed route, the correct tag is "state=proposed" - not "osm.wiki/Tag:status=..."

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