Jump to content

Talk:London Outer Orbital Path

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Illustrator credit?

[edit]

hi wikipedia

I am john barber the illustrator named in your page for the london outer orbital path or london loop. Do you think i might have a link to my website. www.jbdmedia.co.uk this would be help a poor artist a lot.

regards john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.160.98 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2006

I'm not sure whether we could legitimately (have) put in a reference to John's work here: the article doesn't seem to emphasize his contribution much, though maybe it should. In any case the site www.jbdmedia.co.uk is no longer there. Pity he's waited 3+ years for a response, though! :( Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for completeness I should maybe add that the site is now at http://www.jbdesignonline.co.uk/ - but I am still not sure (putting it mildly) that the article needs a link to it. It doesn't really tell us any more about the Loop so I fear that it would really just be an ad, and therefore not OK to include. Others' views would of course be welcome. DBaK (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page needed?

[edit]

Perhaps a disambiguation page is needed to distinguish between the "London Loop" discussed here and the London/New York regulatory trading loophole discussed here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4124552.ece DanD (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page would only be needed if there are two or more Wikipedia articles with similar names that may be confused with each other. Is there a Wikipedia article about the other subject? Road Wizard (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need an update, revision, or just a jolly good birthday??

[edit]

Declaration of interest: we've just started on a "project" to do the loop so of course I am all fired up to look at the wp article. Does this make me a bad editor? Yeah, prolly. Ah well.

Looking at the article I wonder whether in general it needs some more work doing on it. These specific points also occurred to me:

  • The whole thing about it being colour-coded - the blue, green and yellow "groups" for S, NW and NE London. Is this still true? where is it referred to? I haven't seen any sign (hoho) of it, and wonder if I am missing the point. Please enlighten me.
  • The end. It now goes on to Purfleet instead of ending at Rainham Marshes or Coldharbour Point or both or whatever. (Well, it does in the Sharp [2008] book, though weirdly the Walklondon website disagrees on the detail - is it older than the book???) Should the article not reflect this Purfleetness?
  • Is the table of section starts and their co-ordinates necessary or desirable? I can see that it was a lot of effort for someone but I'm just not sure that it should be in an encyclopaedia article when the external links can get you to this kind of information (though admittedly not proper geographic co-ordinates) quite easily. I am certainly not going to start hacking it around without a consensus, but I would like to know what others think. If it adds something essential/useful to the article please explain it to me.
  • Having said that, I am well aware that if the article was longer I'd quite possibly not worry about this table. In other words, am I just being biased because the table seems to overbalance the rest of the article in its current form? Hmmm. Your thoughts?
  • External links. Do we need the TfL page when all it does is summarize and then tell you to go to walklondon, where you'll find the same data and a lot more? Or is it important because of the "officialness" of the TfL page??

Or maybe the article is just fine how it is, and I should shut up (with the possible exception of the colour question!?) I'd be pleased to hear what other editors think. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • 51° 40′ 5.75″ N, 0° 1′ 41.94″ W

goes to a street address somewhere west (?) of the Enfield locks.

66.130.79.50 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the coordinates may be off by about 20 m (actually they are 51°40′05″N 0°01′43″W / 51.668059°N 0.028474°W / 51.668059; -0.028474), I suspect that it's as precise as the rest given in the list and should not be changed. 66.130.79.50 is probably of the mistaken belief that the waypoint on the trail is the railway station, when it is in fact the south end of Bradley Road where it meets the north end of the bridge crossing the creek, per the official route directions. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TransporterMan (sorry about the slow response!) It is exactly as he says, and the co-ordinates given are indeed accurate to within a few feet. To reach the actual lock on the Lee Navigation from Enfield Lock railway station you have to do about 1.5km of the next Loop section. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add a Map?

[edit]

Adding a map showing the course of the loop would be very useful.81.154.114.151 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Outer Orbital Path. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Outer Orbital Path. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Outer_Orbital_Path&oldid=1208220466"