These are terraced houses and are all joined together they are not separate- easiest to bulk delete them and start again!

If they're not appropriatey tagged and aligned within a couple of days I propose deleting them

Thanks I have no idea what I was doing here - finger trouble I guess. Fixed

Alvechurch FP 533(C) needs realigning - you have it going through a building.

I don't understand:
What is an "exchange attribute"?
All my edits here are tagged with a source

Thanks -fixed

Has work on laying track already commenced to justify this being upgraded from proposed to construction? As I understand it the project is still at groundworks preparation.

Indeed! Finger trouble.

Thanx for the QA

way/659945689 tagged as construction does not match the actual extent of construction visible on Bing imagery.

Is the upgrade to landuse=construction based on a survey? I ask because the NCN cycle route has not been diverted and any vegetation clearance is not shown. Also I understand the current construction is groundworks so the actual construction of the rail has yet to start so the way for HS2 should still be proposed not construction, especially over landuse that is not yet tgged as construction. Please slow down and map what is on the ground

Can you confirm an OSM licence-compatible source for the proposed rod junction layout?

Great that you've recognised not to use GSV. You can generate you own streetview using an app from either mapillary or openstreetcam on your smartphone. Once uploaded the images are available to anyone. There might be some in your area although they might not be up to date.
Don't confuse cycling infrastructure with with cycle route. Painted signs on the road surface(known as 1057s) don't indicate routes, they are for safety awareness
It may be that BCC has put them in as advisory routes only rather than named and signed LCNs like the Rea Valley Route or Washwood Heath Route.
See this thread contribution recently from talkgb(worth joining if you haven't)
There appear to be a large number of sections of road in some areas of London tagged as ‘cycle route’ that are no more than the occasional 1057 cycle symbol painted on the road.

They are not signed, and do not have any route numbering.

Based on the discussion it appears
- most were added by user MacLondon
- they were the ‘lowest level’ of route designation by some councils at some time in the past. Pick some ‘useful routes’ on ‘quiet roads’ and just paint some symbols on them for people to follow

Some of these appear on the last 2015 TfL cycle maps in yellow (routes were blue) keyed as ‘other roads recommended by cyclists’

My opinion is
- these are not followable on the ground
- they do not meet TfL or borough quality criteria (and thus do not appear on any more recent maps) eg - they are not shown in any way on Lambeth councils 2017 cycle map https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map
- they decrease legibility of the map because they create a mass of dense blue lines from which it’s hard to pick out genuinely useful routes.
- they probably have a negative impact on routing engines as they are likely treated equally to actual signposted routes.
- in many cases where they do show the most direct route through backstreets that is likely to be the busiest with rat running traffic as it’s where google and Waze will send drivers.
No-one on the thread disagreed
Ultimately it's your judgment call - you know your area but my advice would be to err on the side of caution and not enter lcn route relations unless there are named direction signs to follow.

Which streetlevel imagery did you use?
Can a cyclist follow this advisory route using dedicated cycle route signs?

Thanks for spotting the error- I've moved it to a correct location

Did you survey this? Doesn't look like this on the ground. There are two dedicated cycle lanes one on each side of Bristol Roaod

Russ it's Way: 574505782

Hi Russ

This power line doesn't look this way in the latest bing imagery - I can't see any pylons but I can see disturbed patches of vegetation where it looks like they might have been removed Rgds Brian

Fences don't go through houses! Please terminate fences at buildings

Certainly- both bing and maxar imagery show residential housing in the location. I've tidied up the area by adding bdgs and hopefully I've identified the church correctly, The Co-op looks a bit off however - could you position it correctly?

It's a typo for the name and has been corrected by another user retaining the typo