<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp8cfa5cfyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px;"><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help. I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor. </div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on the computer.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Before I start, I have one more question:</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops."</div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths). There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is not. I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the one that is marked? Should I include it, or not? </div><div><br></div><div class="ydp8cfa5cfsignature"><div style="font-family:new times, serif;font-size:16px;"><div>Regards,</div><div dir="ltr">Peter</div><div dir="ltr"><br><br></div></div></div></div><div id="ydpf0bdf083yahoo_quoted_7488300264" class="ydpf0bdf083yahoo_quoted"><div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;"><div><div class="ydpf0bdf083yqt4349665101" id="ydpf0bdf083yqt30475"><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>