Hi. I did some further edits last night after another survey of the area, looking for some of the changes you had made. Most of my prior edits that you'd changed were accurate though. Among your changes that were inaccurate:

- I'd noticed during a survey on Thu that the separated cycle track (way/888020105 ) had recently moved further west, but you had moved it further east to where a simple painted cycle lane begins

- the westbound cycle track ends on the east side of node/6154905994 rather than extending through the crossing

- there is only a painted cycle lane on the north side of way/693294644, not a one-point entry separated cycleway

- the temporary cycle crossing at way/948893550 only crosses 1 motor carriageway, not 3 carriageways

- way/971266072 is not a dual carriageway

- there is still a works access road at way/886590035

- there is no separate northbound left-turn carriageway yet at way/886590027

My edit wast night will have restored some of the changes that you'd made at the NE arm, though I will have been more strict regarding what is physically fully separated (e.g. the northbound wanded cycleway=track that can be entered at any point)

The mapping of cycling infrastructure is best view with the CyclOSM map, but it hasn't at present rendered to the current data.

One thing I am unsure about is the speed limits here, especially with the east-west route through the roundabout. I wonder if that was something you'd be able to shed any light on from your surveying here.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. Yes, it was intentional.

The relevant footways that are mapped separate to these cycleway crossings are footway=crossing, i.e. they're not sidewalks.

The documented (global) tagging for separately mapped 'bicycle only' cycleways is with "foot=no"... but in the UK (to my knowledge) pedestrians can legally still use them, so there is no actual access restriction for pedestrians on these. I know some OSM users are very protective about inaccurate use of "foot=no".

Instead I've added "footway=separate" just as a potential aid for routing engines to direct pedestrians via the intended pedestrian crossing rather than via the cycleway crossing.

Hi. The proposed changes I mapped here will change the layout from that seen on that video. To my knowledge the scheme (Mansell St cycle link route between CS2 + CS3) hasn't yet started at this junction.

Hi,

There is shared use signage 'round the corner', viewable at https://goo.gl/maps/PLC9oQDNR9Lte7Sz9 - from memory I believe there are now 2 of these signs at this location.

There is nothing (either signage or tactile paving) to indicate that this shared use ends between there and the toucan crossing near the Cycle Hub (https://goo.gl/maps/RKpKxfD2mnVLJZqJA).

I'd agree it could do with some repeater signage along it.

Also, it's not clear to me how the infrastructure would allow eastbound cyclists to get to St. Mary's Road from the end of Quietway 2.

Hi,

Can you check yje royal_cypher value highlighted on https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=87&error=124152741, which suggests that royal_cypher="EVIR" maybe should be "GVIR"?

This road is definitely not oneway.

Please stop doing all these inaccurate "oneway updated" edits in London. If you don't know the areas, you shouldn't be guessing.

Hi. Are you sure about the oneway=yes tagging on Gillespie Road and Drayton Park? To my knowledge this was supposed to be kept as a two-way road.

Thanks. I've done some further tweaking to the cycle tracks along here now.

Was referring above to way/879958745/

Hi, it looks like there's a typo for fence_type here. I'm not sure if you'd intended to just use 'metal' or maybe a longer word.

Thanks for pointing out the error. Now rectified.

Hi. Are you sure this section of the road is actually oneway? Just seems like you might have jumped to conclusions, as the major flow of traffic would be eastbound due to the the exit only at the end of the road.

I was tempted to apply highway=residential to the newly open roads but held off as I saw no evidence of residents' cars here yet.

My mapping of way/933104868 (a fence) was very approximate + incomplete so it could do with improving. I suspect it continues as far as node/7952848711 but I didn't survey that corner to confirm my suspicion.

Nearby and according to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/santander-cycles/find-a-docking-station, the Santander Cycles docking station for Copper Box Arena is listed to get reinstalled this month... but I wouldn't rely on this actually happening as planned.

Hi,

This section is definitely two-way. I just should have spotted + removed this access tag when I split Ashe St into separate one-way + two-way sections.

The original access tag had been added in changeset/17492047 before the road was split.

Hi. Are you sure that "cycleway:both=track" is correct for Balliol Road + Kelfield Gardens?

It looks suspiciously like "cycleway:both=no" might have been intended here.

Hi. This changeset changed an accurately mapped short section of single carriageway into a 'physically separated dual carriageway' as a supposedly "necessary" change. In addition this messed up several bus route relations.

Hi. I've adjusted the tagging here to "maxweight:imperial=5 ton" which might reduce confusion between ton/tonne.

Hi,

Adding role=route to any members of a PTv2 bus route (i.e. route tagged with public_transport:version=2) is not permitted. All ways in the route relation should have an empty role. See osm.wiki/Buses#Adding_streets_to_the_relation

Hi. Names seem to have been added in changeset/34080984. My edit was purely to make the relations more valid as PTv2 route. I wouldn't have any knowledge of the bus stop names.

Hi Andy,
My edit was just to join 2 disconnected segments of road that had 2 overlapping end nodes instead of a single shared node. It had merely come to my attention via OSM Inspector's 'Routing' layer.

I can't comment on the primary road status here, but on zooming out I can see that the surrounding area looks very suspect with regard to highway=primary.

I could easily revert my changeset if that would be appropriate.

Regards,
Mac