Also, if you look at the Lambeth LIP3's Healthy Routes map (essentially future Cycleways) the only proposed route around here will be along the road outside the east edge of Brockwell Park - see https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s98795/Appendix%202%20Draft%20Local%20Implementation%20Plan%20IC.pdf#page=26

It's a path that is indeed "suitable for cyclists of all levels" as suggested by the bikeability level. Every shared use path in the country would have an identical bikeability level. That does make them cycle routes.

Similarly all yellow residential road on their map are "suitable for cyclists at Bikeability Level 2", just as official Quietway residential would be but they aren't all routes.

As the website states, "Lambeth's roads have been audited for 'Bikeability' which is split into three levels and taught through cycle training which is available for free to all students, residents and workers. Our cycle map shows all roads and their Bikeability level."

"Suitable for" does not make any of these paths/roads actual cycle routes, not from a OSM perspective.

Level 1 equate to a shared use footway/cycleway on OSM and Level 2 to a highway=residential, so the bikeablity of these are already represented in the dataset.

The 2004 LCN map clearly shows that a proposed route had instead been planned on the east side via the roads OUTside the park and I think road improvements were made there too just a few years back.

It's just a traffic-free path though, not a circular route. The Lambeth map is a 'cycle map' (rather than an actual 'cycle route map') with most roads in the borough coloured by bikeability.

The bits on the 2004 map were already mapped as the only members of this relation in changeset/63853583, but the extra ones you added in just don't belong in a route.

David, the Lambeth map you're working from just uses levels to classify "bikeability". Level 1 is described as "...routes, paths and crossings plus shared space...".

This doesn't mean that a way with "Level 1 bikeability" is part of an actual cycle route. Cycle routes that are selected to be displayed on the map are highlighted in green, red or blue, as explained in a separate info box on the map.

I wouldn't consider relation/8846995 to be a route, just a cycleway.

Mac

Hi,
Just to let you know, a lot of your recent "access" values have trailing numbers (e.g. "private2" or "customer22") and so are showing up as mispellings at https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=13&lat=51.31058&lon=-0.28509&layers=B0T&ch=0%2C220&show_ign=0&show_tmpign=0

Hi Martin. I have deleted this relation now. It was indeed created by mistake.

Regards,
Mac

Hi Peter, the pre-existing footway can be cut/split at the start +/or end of the named section as necessary, and then the relevant section can be named.

I've just done this now and removed the duplicate footway,

Regards, Mac

Update: The 2 modal filters in this changeset area got started on today. Likely to finish tomorrow but both still open to motorists overnight.

The Gore Road and Ufton Road work was done today. For motorists, Gore Rd is now a 'no entry' from Lauriston Rd but is oneway for exit onto Lauriston.

Hi,

There are 3 lines of footways where way/813457083 is. It looks odd, and seems like it might not be how it was intended to be mapped.

Regards, Mac

Hi LondonCycling_CIDProject,

According to bicycle%20parking=*, the correct value for this bicycle_parking type is the plural "wall_loops", not "wall_loop".

Hi Mike. I was around there about 2 weeks this is indeed open, and probably has been open for some time. I've now remove the access=no.

Regards,
Mac

Thanks. I should be able to survey all of these on the 11th.

Hi. There's nothing to suggest that this has ever been a shared footway and the north end of this way did end where the painted cycle lane ended prior to more recent changes at the miniroundabout. I think it's safe to assume that this was initially just a cycle lane that got wrongly mapped as a separate way.

I've done some amendments to just tag the road with cycle lane tagging instead and tried to keep the separate footway to where it's physically separated.

However at the south of here at Portal Way it gets a bit confusing on the ground, as there are toucan crossings that don't seem to have obvious cycleways on both sides of the crossings as would be expected.

Thanks for that. I'm surprised that the raft of changes here could be implemented yet. I know how the final layout will operate here, but I think I might need to survey if that's how this will operate from Monday.

Hi, this is now corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

Now amended, including the night-time access restriction at the entrance from Garrad's Rd. Also added similar restrictions on other sideroads nearby.

Hi. Are you sure this road is one-way?

There has been no entry from the east end of the road segment, which would explain the 'marked as likely oneway by improveosm.org'. However this segment of road has itself been two-way.

Thanks Jon. I've reverted this to a oneway cycle track again as it's definitely a separated oneway contraflow track.

Mac

Hi, I was wondering if the turn restriction at relation/10813264 should be "no_u_turn" instead of "only_u_turn"?

Hi, I was wondering if the turn restriction at relation/10876648 should be "no_u_turn" instead of "only_u_turn"?