There is a 'Note' about the closure, and I'll refer to these change set comments in it. I'm sure someone will pick up the required surveys/edits.

Thank you! And thanks for updating the access tags...

Interesting - do these two changesets (#154954364 and #154954687) mean that the closure will be between the stairs just west of Manor Road up to Canning Road only? I had been assuming it was as far east as the Long Wall / Abbey Road ramp.

I saw the ebb and flow of your changesets with the INSPIRE IDs. I was working up the gumption to ask about whether INSPIRE IDs properly belong to buildings or to land parcels. In your recent changesets, you'd applied them to the buildings. I'll add some commentary to the proposal, if that's OK.

Have you found the Überterracer plugin for JOSM? It can take a rectangular terrace object and convert it into an numbered set of L-shaped houses in one-or-two clicks. Asking because I only found it this month, and it would be super-useful for what you're doing in this area.

Finally!

I'd have no problem with that one. Thanks for checking the foot connectivity.

Hi there - thanks for getting in touch. I missed the footway next to it (filtered out in JOSM perhaps) and so added the foot=yes to the cycle lane (which I could see on the aerial image). I've fixed it in changeset #: 152512503.

I've recorded a KartaView trace for the new stretch. https://kartaview.org/map/@51.54039506392738,-0.009139437504813941,16z

Are you quite sure this is a motorway? Asking because in the UK roads thst are called "motorway" have a reference number like M11, which the North Circular does not.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151362568

Cycleway 27 is not hidden on a footway, any more than it is hidden on a highway (like the adjoining Middleton Road). Cyclists who want to follow C27 can do so on the other Map Layers - CyclOSM / Cycle Map.

The logical conclusion of your argument would be that the 'on the ground truth' (of the painted signs) should be checked with a lawyer before being mapped.

This path has a clear (to me, subjectively) vibe of a footpath rather than a cyclepath.

If you change it back, I won't change it back again - but to guard against anyone else doing so, you might put your point about the reason to ignore the on-the-ground signs in a note tag?

I've long thought there should be a multicolour red/blue way on osm.org for cycleways that are explicitly walkable and footways that are explicitly cyclable - but last time I looked at the code, all elements are monocolour only.

Hi there - in this change, you removed an overhead gantry, the kind that supports signage over a roadway. Did you mean to delete it - is it really gone from the road in reality?

I've added explicit foot tagging to these newly-labelled cycleways. (changeset/149893965)

I use an app (Guru Maps) that refuses to route pedestrians on cycleways unless foot routing access tags are explicitly set. There are probably others.

Thanks!

Thanks for adding these. For access, would it be better to have access=emergency (and maybe emergency=designated), or is it literally police only?

Done!

I've included the minor 'discs', but not the flappy papery ones (which I think are temporary). I'll add this one, this evening.

I missed that new guidepost - thanks for adding it. Strongly indicates that the route goes around - not through - this park. I'll correct this area this evening.

Changes based on the signage on the ground - acouple of different crossings and some places where the route actually goes through a green space - not too many of those.

I've made a few changes to the Green Link Walk relations following an in person survey. GPXs uploaded. I've also added the (patchy) signposts