London Loop Sections
I've a few of concerns about subdividing any walk at the time of data entry: 1. It's imposing an unnecessary and arbitrary structure on the walk. Such matters can be handled at the time of using the data or by using references in the wiki description. 2. The proposed structure for the Loop is that used in the book of the walk (15 sections), not by Walk London (24 sections). There may be copyright concerns. 3. Alternative structures may be more useful, such as mileposts, transport links, etc., although all of these could be derived at the time of use. 4. I have a vision of a user opening a box on the walk relation map and, using the stats that are generated by the box, printing out just their selected length of the walk (regardless of imposed structures) in ribbon form with surrounding roads and transport links. 5. Creating abstract structures is effectively tagging for the database.
I think that the purpose of the link routes of London Walks is to lead the walk user to the appropriate transport link. Possibly this is redundant if OSM is used as a base because all local transport links are displayed on an appropriately rendered map. They do however, serve to confuse a simple walk line. --UrbanRambler 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)