Hi,
As the AMB cycle network will consist of what are officially called 'xarxa basica' (which will all be numbered routes in the future) + 'xarxa secundaria' (not numbered), I've started to use this 'route:class' tag as a way to distinguish between these 2 subtypes of rcn routes in the region.

I don't know of any official tag for doing this, so I used a customised tag (route:class).

Many maps of the cycle network only show the 'xerxa basica', including the maps along route sections that have already been numbered. It's useful to have a tag that can be used to create a customised map to render these 2 subtypes differently.

(I have also seen the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' in use for routes within London's cycle network.)

This would be a LIP-funded scheme (to extend Cycleway 10). However TfL withheld LIP funding during the pandemic and are only selectively funding scheme like this at the moment.

This scheme is still likely to go ahead at some point once funded is received.

Much of the bypass has been constructed now (see https://youtu.be/yoy5fEWfjCQ?si=kE5wRVWtVGTuIf08) and there is a clear distinction between (I) what is yet to be constructed and (ii) what is already a roadway that's being kept inaccessible to the public but is being used to gain access to the construction areas.

There will be no pedestrian or cycle access here for several months.

You can see the closed off works area (on left side of the bus) at https://youtu.be/OdqoNEVJYlo?si=bUHKpu6G7Hgr92Q7&t=112.

A section of this sidewalk even needed to be removed - this is close to where the Silvertown Tunnel emerges.

I generally use JOSM for fixing route relations, especially bus routes. It's a steep learning curve to learn how to use it though.

It's relatively straightforward to fix a simple route than just has a gap introduced in it, but it gets more complicated with a bus route that passes along one or more roads more than once.

It might be related to the Tideways works, as the current (long-term diversion) two-way cycle link between C3 and C6 resulted in the sliproad from Victoria Embankment becoming exit only... until the previous layout gets restored.

It looks as though you might not have got the southbound primary 'route' on Puddle Dock as you had intended. Worth having another look at it.

Hi. Sorry for the delay in replying.

The following is my take on what is a crossing object (node) and what isn't a crossing object (way).

With the node/way for crossings. it's the highway tag that defines what the object is (similar to a noun). The subtags just add detail about the object (similar to adjectives).

Node:
A crossing on a road is mapped and definied as an intersection NODE on the road. Without a "highway=crossing" tag this is an undefined node. Even if a footway is connected to the node, it is this "highway=crossing" node that is further defined according to what type of crossing it is. with tags such as "crossing=traffic_signals".

Way:
A "footway=crossing" is added to "highway=footway" to indicate what type of a FOOTWAY it is. Without a "highway=footway" tag a "footway=crossing" is an undefined way. A "footway=crossing" is definied as the width of the roadway from one kerb to the other kerb, i.e. it's part of a roadway rather than being a true footway,

This 'crosswalk' FOOTWAY never has tactile paving or traffic signals - these are always on the sidewalk/crossing island. Tagging with "crossing:island" on the footway is just as meaningless as it would be if tagged on the road - this tag was created for crossing nodes to avoid use of "crossing=island".

The 'crosswalk' FOOTWAY can be tagged with surface (a tag not added to a crossing node!) and this way is either marked/zebra or not marked.

To avoid confusion, I think "footway=crosswalk"would be a better way to subtag these footways. The iD editor is particularly poor at distinguishing between the nodes + ways, and I'm sure lots of users are being led astray by iD.

In the last few months, with their preset "marked crossing" for nodes, iD have at least stopped mistagging these nodes as "crossing=marked" and now use the correct "crossing=uncontrolled".

If you look at he last 2 tagging examples at highway=traffic_signals#How_to_map_(new), these do not add "crossing=traffic_signals" to the crosswalks ('Green ways').

I can see that at footway=crossing (the English version) User:Victor.yarema added (in Feb 2021) an example with the "crossing=traffic_signals" subtag.

Having looked at the other 9 main language versions: this "crossing=traffic_signals" did get added into the German wiki (in Nov 2022), but it is not present on the French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or Polish etc wikis. As such, it appears to not be an approved change to the wiki.

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 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 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 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 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. way/393242439?