There's definitely been a realignment of relation/11815403.

The cycleway is fully constructed, but is just not officially accessible yet.

Hi. I think it's a bit premature to consider this barriered cycleway as being officially open. See https://853.london/2021/10/01/deptford-creek-roads-4-2m-cycleway-4-will-not-open-until-at-least-march-council-admits/

If you disregard the barriers, when cycling westbound the 'route' comes to a particularly unsafe cul de sac, with no cycling crossing.

Eastbound is a lot less unsafe, but the (functional) cycle lights for crossing node/6552004400 are kept covered up. Also, I doubt anyone is daring to use (or even move the barriers at) way/697668255 - I think the planned cycle lights might not even work here.

In terms of previously existing cycle routes, the only two-way route that could really be made safely would be the NCN21-NCN4 link to the east of node/6552004401. The unstarted work that is holding up the opening of the cycleway is along this section though.

Regards,
Mac

Hi. This now now been moved back.

Yep. I'd sent you a private message mentioning this. You had also mapped the 2 links here as a single (i.e. 'continuous') route which isn't the case.

Agree. I've changed this to a cycleway now. I didn't notice any dropped kerb on the QEOP side to merit tagging as a cycleway at that end though.

There is some work going on at way/850658623 which is currently closed. Possibly the steps there are being converted to a ramp, but I didn't survey the work.

Ah, I see. Interestingly https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/en/request/breakdown_of_100km_of_cycle_lane does list 0.5 km of Loughborough Road as 'New or upgraded cycle routes delivered or are under Route length construction'.

Also, https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s117177/Appendix%201%20Covid-19%20Transport%20Strategy%20Programme.pdf#page=8 projected just 2 weeks of work in 2020 for whatever was planned here.

I'll re-tag this with state=proposed.

Here's a map of the London Cycle Network as it was in 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20040529124642/http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/uploaded_files/library/documents/LCN_MAP_2004.pdf

The relation (13400058) for this LCN route can be viewed at https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=13400058 and is tagged with "cycle_network=GB:London Cycle Network".

Signage along the route is a mixture of council signage (which includes segment/links that are not part of the National Cycle Network) and Sustrans' NCN stickers. Along London's NCN4, it is a local network route, a national network route and an international (EV2) network route... but signage-wise all three are represented by the same 'ref=4'. As far as I'm aware, there is no actual signage for EV2 in the UK.

Within London, Route 4 of the National Cycle Network is also Route 4 of the London Cycle Network. A separate subrelation was needed to represent the section that is part of the LCN, and this includes a segment in Putney that has been dropped from the NCN.

Ah, I see. I've reverted my changes to the roundabout now, including the central grass circle.

Have a look at way/962036167. I've retagged this central grass island as 'was:landuse=grass' cos it already was overlapping some of the roadway prior to my changeset + so it will need redrawing too. Maybe you'd be able to have a go at this.

I'd interpret the wiki as referring to whether to map physically separate cycleways (e.g. way/156111836 on this stretch of road) as a simple 'highway=* + cycleway=track' or to map as a separate 'highway=cycleway'. I'd always aim to map these as separate ways.

From a (non-routing) mapping perspective, it would still misrepresent the infrastructure to map this as a separate way.

This isn't a crossing, it's a signalised junction. Vallance Rd <-> New Rd is a single carriageway with no protected cycleway. Crossings usually are perpendicular to the flow of traffic.

This junction just has advisory with-flow lanes for cyclists, with broken white lines meaning that motorists, including ambulances to the adjacent hospital, can still drive into these lanes. It's not much different to all other cycle lanes.

At the junction there's just an early release of 2-3 seconds for cyclists. Although there are markings for a 'turn right in 2 phases' here... if willing to chance it when the lights change, you can veer out of the painted 'advisory' lane at any point and turn right (if e.g. no cyclists are coming from the opposite direction.) I've done this several times on early Saturday mornings.

Even if sticking to the painted lane to go straight across, it's very obvious you're still on an unprotected roadway (especially as Tower Hamlets doesn't have the best standard of driving!)

If there was e.g. an island then it would be mapped as a separate way, such as at https://goo.gl/maps/HpGo7p1pf4UyGkuq8.

The issue here is that (apart from the physically separated bit at the north of the street) the cycle track is connected to the road along the length of the road. Between each pair of wands there are links between the cycle track + the road. No house on the west side of the road is inaccessible from the cycle track.

As you had changed it, to cycle from Stamford Hill station to any of the houses here (all are on the west side), you would have to cycle the full length of West Bank and do a u-turn and go back north via the roadway.

This track (basically a protected cycle lane) is too inherently part of the road to be mapped as a separated way.

Despite the elephant track marks, this is just a junction rather than an actual crossing, basically with the blue anti-skid asphalt marked out to guide cyclists. AFAIK it is not an offence for motorists to enter them and they can definitely 'left hook' into 'crossing' cyclists turning into Whitechapel Rd from Vallance Rd or New Rd.

The UK forum 'consent' is that mapping should be of actual physical separation and that painted lines/markings are not a physical barrier/separation.

Tagging the road with cycleway=lane is the best way to represent the layout here.

I know you have a keen eye for the coloured asphalt - you could tag here with "cycleway:lane:colour=blue".

Hi. I removed this tagging earlier today, once works were announced as finished.

I'm not sure if two-way has started along way/252614807 to Fleet St. though. I saw conflicting maps this week, but I'd be surprised if it's not two-way.

When I surveyed round there on Thu night, I thought there would need to be some additional changes at node/258663529 where eastbound traffic would merge. Layout might have changed over the weekend though.

There could also be new traffic access restrictions at way/4299212 now the oneway has been reversed along it also.

Yes, I'd agree "destination:" would be the appropriate prefix to use here. I will use "destination:rcn_ref" to reflect that the route being signed is a regional cycle route.

Thanks for the advice.

Hi. The guidepost in question here is indeed for the C6 route and is a member of the relevant route relation with 'role=guidepost'.

I just used "guidepost:rcn_ref" as a metatag for adding detail for the route number +'route class' signed on the guidepost. I deliberately didn't want it to be rendered on any map.

Using rcn_ref on nodes is intended for cycle node networks (mostly in Holland + Belgium) where a node (or 2-3 nearby nodes) have unique values of rcn_ref. I know the OpenCycleMap developer frowns on its use on nodes in London, as it is not a node network here. If all signposts were mapped + tagged with rcn_ref, lcn_ref and ncn_ref, then OpenCycleMap would be littered by pink + blue + red bubbles.

In the second last update to OpenCycleMap this 'rcn_ref' tagged node this appeared similar to node/418847948#map=18/51.98970/4.50095&layers=C.

I expected it to vanish with the latest map update, but it now appears as a pink dot, suggesting to me that the OpenCycleMap developer had spotted it and reacted in some way to render it differently but I can't be sure yet if this is for the current version of this node or for the previous one.

Hi. It looks like you might have applied the wrong set of tags to way/457358275 plus also to the 2 ways connected at the north end.

The full 'T' shape is tagged as a zebra crossing.

Hi. I've done some slight adjustments on both sides of the roundabout to slightly 'favour' a straighter route for forward directions.

The mapping should reflect actual physical separation though. I can't remember how the layout used to be mapped here, but I suspect the physical separation of carriageways was exaggerated and either didn't permit access to way/850929142 or didn't reflect that the single carriageway ends to the east of node/8905731637

The angle didn't look like it should provoke a turn left instruction in some apps. It seems like this is more a routing app issue than a mapping one though.

Hi. The purpose of a stop_area_group is to allow routing via public transport where there is an interchange.

In this instance, it creates a symbolic link between the bus stops for Watford Junction and the railway stops in the train station, avoiding the need to have these fully connected by footways in order to permit a continuous route by routing engines.