MacLondon's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 121581761 | over 3 years ago | The station entrance is opened but the rest of the building is still fenced off (including the Oxford St side) as construction seems unfinished above the station entrance. |
| 120063281 | over 3 years ago | Hi. I've removed what I'm sure would have been errant extra tagging with 'node=2133959589' from 4 areas of grass (in changeset/120430257). |
| 119690188 | over 3 years ago | Hi. The errant tagging has now been removed. |
| 114405086 | over 3 years ago | Thanks for pointing this out, Daniel. I've now fixed the error gap here. Regards,
|
| 118722346 | over 3 years ago | Hi. I've changed Vallentin Road to oneway=no. The road has new a 'no entry' restriction at its west end (buses + cycles are exempted). This is already set as a pair of turn restrictions. General motorists can still enter at the east end of the road, travel westwards almost to the end of the road and then do a u-turn and exit the same way they entered. |
| 118590501 | over 3 years ago | Hi. I've corrected the turn restriction relation/13933331 into 2 separate 'no left' + 'no straight ahead' turn restrictions (except cycles). |
| 87951032 | almost 4 years ago | I can see that you've now resolved this issue. |
| 118408630 | almost 4 years ago | Thanks. These are all now removed. |
| 116566030 | almost 4 years ago | Hi, "crossing=toucan" is not an approved tag for a crossing with traffic signals. See crossing=*?uselang=en-GB#Approved_tags "toucan" is only valid as a value for "crossing_ref". See crossing_ref=* |
| 115857452 | almost 4 years ago | Since changeset/115290764 the extent of the relation for "EV1 in Spain" also included the Ireland section of the EV1 route. This was due to a circular reference within the relation/2763798 parent relation, with this relation wrongly being included as a submember of one of its child subrelation (Spain's EV1 superrelation). |
| 115682030 | almost 4 years ago | There's definitely been a realignment of relation/11815403. The cycleway is fully constructed, but is just not officially accessible yet. |
| 115682030 | almost 4 years ago | 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,
|
| 106429713 | almost 4 years ago | Hi. This now now been moved back. |
| 113876596 | about 4 years ago | 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. |
| 113535470 | about 4 years ago | 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. |
| 113165840 | about 4 years ago | 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. |
| 113178713 | about 4 years ago | 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. |
| 113178713 | about 4 years ago | 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. |
| 112762505 | about 4 years ago | 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. |
| 112285798 | about 4 years ago | 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. |