The changeset descriptions seemed to suggest there was an intention to map the Greenway 'consistently' (rather than accurately) and wasn't based on any obvious knowledge of it.

Hi. Any reason why you reintroduced the section of C22 that will be closed for the next 3 years back into the relation for the open route?

Thanks Pascal. Now removed.

I tend to use that name=zz for temporary use to ensure I'm adding ways to the correct route. I try to remember to delete the name before I save the changeset, but every few days I do a search for instances where I'd forgotten to delete it.

The LCN+ links in London were continuous (numbered) corridors that were used to plan the entire intended cycle network in London. These included existing + aspirational alignments for cycle routes. Numbering would change whenever a line crossed a borough boundary.

The idea for these links was that individual boroughs could strategise long term towards delivering missing sections of the cycle network and ensure that neighbouring boroughs were 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. The forward planning could include e.g. that future buildings might need to have an arch to enable a cycle route.

The numbering used was completely separate to actual cycle route numbers and was never meant to be used on any route signs but was basically for 'administrative' purposes.

However the LCN+ links that did get mapped on OSM were initially wrongly tagged as being actual lcn cycle routes, with numbers like +166 and +205.

I only changed the name at + to the SE of the Manor Rd junction. If you think the street name has also been wrong further up (i.e. NW of this junction), feel free to correct it.

Yeah, I'd intended it to changed to highway=path.... but instead changed the surface tag by mistake.

I've corrected this now.

Now corrected. A separate node for Superdrug had become merged with the subway exit.

Thanks Andy. This gap is now fixed.

No island. I've corrected the error now (and have also remove tactile_paving from the middle of the road.)

Yes, it should all be in the same relation. I've corrected the error now.

I've removed that duplicate node now.

Hi Andy,
I've now removed the newer one of these 2 superroute relations.

Hi, are you sure Hackney Council has already reversed its recent change of direction of the western section of Clifden Rd?

Hi Melaniya,
I've removed that turn restriction now.

I did witness bus 115 (relation/3293394) turning that way on Thursday.

Most buses and taxis now use way/831157592.

Regards,
Mac

Thanks. I've now renamed it to Tanner Lane.

Possibly... but more likely they won't know!

El millor mapa de la xarxa Bicivia planificada és a
https://ide.amb.cat/Visor/?activeLayers=bicivia

La 'ruta' de relation/19325078 (i algunes altres 'rutes' que es van mostrar incorrectament com a Bicivies) no forma part de la xarxa regional AMB.

My guess is that Hackney maybe installed the bollard with the 'shared use' disc, but TfL possibly knew nothing about it.

It's very messy here signage-wise.

There's a (shared use) disc on the bollard at node/7483232045 that's facing cyclists coming from Homerton Row... but no sign(s) to indicate where the 'no cycling' kicks in.

Ideally they would relocate the zebra crossing (+ convert to a parallel crossing) to be almost in line with Homerton Row.

I've now restored the building to how it had been tagged until recently, and added a node for the POI (without the building tags).