You're right, Mike, it was not as intended. I've corrected it now on this and 2 adjacent ways.

Thanks,
Mac

Sorry for the long delay in replying, Mike.

I doubt these routes have names unlike e.g. the old named "quiet routes" in Waltham Forest. Both are shown in grey on https://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mini-Holland-Overview-Maps-v26.jpg

The newer local network seems structured like a grid with east-west & north-south 'links' between the existing or new main routes. So these links might not be named if not part of some new named route.

On OSM, relation/9114441 is now tagged as a proposed route. This route is shown on a sneak preview of the digital map promised as part of the miniholland project as being part of a route labelled as C26. This might not be the official ref for that complete route as the map is not yet finalised.

The map doesn't include the old routes. See http://appliedwayfinding.com/projects/waltham-forest-mini-holland/ for detils. Photo of map is at http://appliedwayfinding.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Pages-from-WF_Masterplan_Final_spreads_01.04.2016-2.png

The route in relation/9114443 has been marked on the ground (with paint) as a cycle route for some time. I think road markings on Jewel Road are more recent so I extended the route along here.

Regards,
Mac

Hi Bernard. I've had a look into this changeset again and have now deleted a large number of errant nodes - changeset/64939468.
Regards, Mac

I've instead tagged the ways with highway=proposed + proposed=cycleway. The proposed=yes that you'd used had no effect, and the cycleway rendered on the map as an open cycleway would.

Yes, it should. Thanks. Now corrected.

Sorry Jan, my mistake. The "lcn_" was meant to have been "lcn_ref".

This intent is that the "RG" text label for Redbridge Greenway would continue to be applied along this section of the Q6 route (rcn route) which has superceded it.

I've corrected this to "lcn_ref" now and have also changed the lcn value to "lcn=no", which will allow the ways involved to inherit "rcn=yes" from the Q6 relation.

Mac

Hi,

I've noticed you've changed some shared-use pavements to highway=path at Stratford. Usage of that tag seems to be intended for (multi-use) trails of low standard rather than for 'urban paths' (see highway=path): "This tag is used for paths for which all and any of... highway=cycleway... would be inappropriate or inadequate (or simply not sufficient), but which are nonetheless usable for travel or navigation".

This tag would be an appropriate alternative to highway=cycleway within e.g. woodland areas like Wanstead Flats, but around built up areas like Stratford I feel this standard of shared use cycleway should have been left as highway=cycleway + segregated=no.

Regards,
Mac

Definite typo. I think layer=-33 might well be in Australia! I've corrected it now.

Thanks. Not sure how that happened, but I've now reverted it back to lit=no.

I've now retagging the pedestrian area as area:highway=footway, a tag which requires the additional linear footways. Also, I removed the surface tag from the SW footway.

Hi, are you sure there is a traffic lights-controlled crossing at node/106189377?

It seems unlikely, although I'm not familiar with the area.

On further investigation I spotted the big error you were referring to. I have hopefully now corrected this.
Thanks

I've rechecked and can't find any issue with the changeset.

What I did included putting all proposed (but not open) Q2 sections into relation/8448916, which is tagged with state=proposed.

The exact Q2 route in central London west of Bloomsbury hasn't been confirmed but should follow roads that are already mapped as proposed quietways.

Thanks Mike,
I've added permissive tags for cyclists here,
Mac

Hi Derick,
You're probabaly correct. I changed this as part of 'blind tagging changes' to multiple crossings tagged as zebra crossings but not accompanied with a crossing=uncontrolled tag. Crossings mistagged as zebras would have had crossing=uncontrolled added.

This crossing had been tagged as a zebra 3 years ago by yourself, so presumably it has been converted since then to a crossing_ref=pelican + crossing=controlled but remained tagged as a zebra. Feel free to edit as such if you're confident it still is a pelican crossing.
Mac

I've now done further updates along Station Road and re-added Central Parade as a pedestrian street

Hi motogs,
The history you want is at way/237853111/history. There is no discontinuity in the Greenwich to Bexleyheath Quietway (relation/7812267#map=16/51.4571/0.0825) however.

During my update I had to split what is now cycleway 566546111, which would have created the 'new' way.

According to way/205286019/history you yourself 'deleted' a footway 3 month ago, but I'm sure it will have been an appropriate edit rather than an actual deletion.
Regards,
MacLondon

Point taken and understood. I've now deleted the relation.

Hi,
I've fixed the turn restriction issue now.
Thanks,
Mac

Hi,
I'm not sure why you removed status=proposed from the relation for Q6 cycle route. This is the recommended tag for cycle route relations - see osm.wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations ("opencyclemap rendering shows these routes dotted").

The proposed: prefix and other lifecycle prefixes are described for use with objects (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix), not with relations.

Regards,
Mac