Thanks. Not sure how that happened, but I've now reverted it back to lit=no.

I've now retagging the pedestrian area as area:highway=footway, a tag which requires the additional linear footways. Also, I removed the surface tag from the SW footway.

Hi, are you sure there is a traffic lights-controlled crossing at node/106189377?

It seems unlikely, although I'm not familiar with the area.

On further investigation I spotted the big error you were referring to. I have hopefully now corrected this.
Thanks

I've rechecked and can't find any issue with the changeset.

What I did included putting all proposed (but not open) Q2 sections into relation/8448916, which is tagged with state=proposed.

The exact Q2 route in central London west of Bloomsbury hasn't been confirmed but should follow roads that are already mapped as proposed quietways.

Thanks Mike,
I've added permissive tags for cyclists here,
Mac

Hi Derick,
You're probabaly correct. I changed this as part of 'blind tagging changes' to multiple crossings tagged as zebra crossings but not accompanied with a crossing=uncontrolled tag. Crossings mistagged as zebras would have had crossing=uncontrolled added.

This crossing had been tagged as a zebra 3 years ago by yourself, so presumably it has been converted since then to a crossing_ref=pelican + crossing=controlled but remained tagged as a zebra. Feel free to edit as such if you're confident it still is a pelican crossing.
Mac

I've now done further updates along Station Road and re-added Central Parade as a pedestrian street

Hi motogs,
The history you want is at way/237853111/history. There is no discontinuity in the Greenwich to Bexleyheath Quietway (relation/7812267#map=16/51.4571/0.0825) however.

During my update I had to split what is now cycleway 566546111, which would have created the 'new' way.

According to way/205286019/history you yourself 'deleted' a footway 3 month ago, but I'm sure it will have been an appropriate edit rather than an actual deletion.
Regards,
MacLondon

Point taken and understood. I've now deleted the relation.

Hi,
I've fixed the turn restriction issue now.
Thanks,
Mac

Hi,
I'm not sure why you removed status=proposed from the relation for Q6 cycle route. This is the recommended tag for cycle route relations - see osm.wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations ("opencyclemap rendering shows these routes dotted").

The proposed: prefix and other lifecycle prefixes are described for use with objects (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix), not with relations.

Regards,
Mac

Hi,
I've reverted your edits on Chancel Street, as you actually inadvertently converted the road to one-way for cycling. The correct value for two-way cycling (i.e. NOT oneway) is oneway:bicycle=no.

Regards,
Mac

Hi,
I've just done a re-edit to the junction of Haggerston Road and Scriven Street (node/5220841025). The junction recently has undergone a new layout and so your recent changes were based on outdated Bing imagery.
Regards,
Mac

Thanks Andy. I've corrected the error.
Regards,
Mac

Hi Mike,
I've corrected way/537316355 to footway=crossing.

The foot=unoffical was inherited from way/243330519, from which I have now removed it. way/536798839 itself is part of a segregated section of CS8, with a subway separating it from the footway. It is marked with a blue cycle only sign, with a shared use sign where it merges again with the footway. I have therefore changed this to foot=no, as recommended at osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Cycle_Tracks

Regards,
Mac

Thanks. I think I have now resolved this issue.

Sorry, these were pasted in error. I have removed them both,
Thanks, Mac

Mike, these ways are marked as bus only and form a bus only 'crossing' to allow buses to do u-turns over to the other side of Archway road - definitely not for use as a pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian access is along openstreetmap.org/way/482765894 and openstreetmap.org/way/482764868 respectively.
Mac

Thanks Jan,
I have now corrected my completely mistyped entry to what I had intended to enter