I'm curious what you think this toucan crossing connects to, once you've crossed Lower Lea Crossing going north on a bike:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.510565755833&lng=0.0019071341666858643&z=18.196574224490558&pKey=528131508603267&focus=photo&x=0.4827265650123412&y=0.549184939015345&zoom=0

It either connects to the pavement (possible) or more likely to the riverside walk, which you've now tagged as requiring a dismount. That doesn't make sense.

My references to Silvocea Way come from the little number plates on each of the lamp posts along the riverside railing by the way (though the council misspelled it IIRC, oops):

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.510565755833&lng=0.0019071341666858643&z=18.196574224490558&pKey=304897057849594&focus=photo&x=0.7912056863308451&y=0.40833030781224705&zoom=3

By the way, the sign at the northern end is the little round sign in this Mapillary image, on a pole that's set in the brickwork for that walkway. It's 90% faded as mentioned in other changeset comments.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.5139713&lng=0.0027414&z=17&pKey=6051898158155110&focus=photo&x=0.3394868821773948&y=0.38727828005875437&zoom=1.6796769851951558

Dude I'm not going to argue. Have a good day, and please don't destroy any more cycle tagging beyond your own backyard.

I've asked the council for clarification, and told them about the faded signage at the top of the path that I think notes this as a shared cycleway, but is admittedly unclear.

https://ibb.co/WK6SR0z

Have a good day :)

Hi again!

1) what do you want photographic evidence of? the sign at the top of Silvocea Way ( https://ibb.co/WK6SR0z ) or the toucan crossing at the southern end ( https://ibb.co/MC5Ww6v )? a lack of dismount signs on the vast majority of these paths (your own survey showed that)?

2) we agree that there is a lack of signage on most of these paths

3) that behaviour is implied by the highway=footway tag which is already in place, and a bicycle=dismount tag shouldn't be added unless it's explicitly signed on the ground (and the only sign I'm aware of is at the southern end to the pathway through London City Island, but literally none of the other entrances to that area, at least none that I saw yesterday)

By the way, on a related topic, do you happen to know the name of this path?

osm.org/note/3840789

Thanks for sharing the photos. I've included one of the restrictions that I missed on my survey today.

osm.org/changeset/150035342

(hah, we probably just passed each other going out to take photos :)

Yes, I live in Canning Town, and I've just been out to re-survey what's on the ground.

I don't want this to turn into a tagging war, so:

- I'm not re-instating cycleways unless they're clearly signed either on the ground or on an official map (I won't rely on planning docs, as I agree they don't necessarily confirm the reality, sadly)

- I've re-instated Silvocea Way as a shared cyclepath as it's signed as such at the northern end (the sign is like 90% faded!), and ends at a toucan crossing. I don't know about the eastern connection to LCI and there is no shared cyclepath sign at that end, so I'm leaving that for now.

- I've re-walked all the paths around Goodluck Hope today, and there are no "dismount" signs on any of the paths on the City Island / Goodluck Hope estate (with the exception of a "no e-scooters" sign at the northern end of LCI). But there are also no signs inviting bikes, so I'm leaving those as footpaths for now.

My changeset reflecting these changes:
osm.org/changeset/150034406

No I'm sorry, but I think you're just wrong with some of these, and I think the edits should be reverted unless there is evidence of signage on the ground that explicitly states cyclists should dismount.

A Tower Hamlets document on cycling strategy ("Tower Hamlets – A Cycling Borough") - https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Transport-and-infrastructure/TH%20Cycling%20Strategy.pdf - includes a map of existing cycle routes that shows the stretch of the Leaway along Silvocea Way as a canal and riverside path, implying it's a shared use path.

The parts that skirt around City Island and Goodluck Hope are another matter, but given the amount of cycle parking along them, I suspect they are also intended to be shared use paths.

Hmm, I'll have to pop down with my bike to check it out again at some point. I'm now curious to see if the developers are failing on commitments made in their planning application.

Have a good day! :)

I'm just having a look through the original planning documents (PA/14/03594/A1), and at least in the first version of the Design & Access Statement (Part 6), these paths are described as:

"Riverfront promenades
Linking to the wider area including: pedestrian and cycle route, informal play, planting and seating."

Whether this made it into the final version or not, I don't know, but it certainly seems like the intent was for these to be shared footways.

Fair enough (if it's considered a pavement...)

I think the motorbike thing is implicit on highway=footway anyway, but there's no harm in adding it explicitly.

I'm curious about the bicycle=dismount though... I've never spotted signs there that tell cyclists to dismount. Is that a new thing?

Sounds good, thanks :)

No problem, I've done similar before!

Are these definitely tracks? They look like they may be the route of a pipeline of some sort, so may just be reincorporated back into the fields once complete?

I found a planning application (19/01931/FUL) which shows the CHiP plant as being the lower half, so I've update the top half to show the Cadent plant.

Is the northern half of the site actually the "adjacent gas pressure reduction station owned by Cadent" mentioned on the Beckton CHiP website?

Thanks for checking out those fixmes!