@ndm, thank you. I will look at that directly.
I was also aware of the cycle and foot lanes physically marked on the Redcliffe Bascule Bridge.

I am still curious as to your interest in these matters.

kind regards

@trigpoint, thank you. I am aware of the various levels at wich OSM works.

To my mind the first level is what you see when using a browser. My expectation an element displayed in blue is mainly or exclusively for bicycle access.

The difficulty arises when distinguishing between 'footway / footpath' and 'path' as those are both displayed in red.

Your reference to access is the second level, to my way of thinking and comes into play with apps (PC, Android, iOS etc) using OSM as the source. The OSM browser page picks up on that with a 'Cycle Map' display.

And, in addition, would you kindly indentify the location of the elements you believe should revert to cycle path. Supported with documentation, if any, from the Bristol City Council showing these ways are to be exclusively used as cycle ways.

with kind regards

ndn, thank you.

I could have asked you the same question, that you appear to have made assumptions.

If you would be so kind as to answer my question that followed my response to your initial query, then I think we can proceed on the basis we both have the best interest of all users at heart.

again, kind regards

@ndm , thank you for your observation.

My understanding includes these considerations:

* all my tags in Bristol are for ways accessible by the public without let or hindrance
* these ways are tagged for those on foot, such as River Avon Trail

If you can give me a list of my tags that are for ways provided exclusively for cycling I will be happy to do as you suggest.

It is my understanding the tag *path is neutral in its application.

When making changes I do my best to preserve pre-existing relations and routes, whether bus, cycling, walking, whatever.

kind regards

replace "varying" with "multiple"

Where a way has multiple uses a tag that avoids "ownership" is to be preferred.

DaveF, kia ora

From the OSM highway wiki:
Footway ... Should not be used for paths where the primary or intended usage is unknown.
From the Rivers and Canals Trust website I note, with respect to K&A:
Today, thousands of visitors enjoy boating, walking and cycling along the peaceful towpaths of the Kennet & Avon Canal.
And in times past horses did the towing.

And cyclists use significant lengths of K&A for their National Cycle Route 4.

A tag indicating "mainly/exclusively for pedestrians seems highly inappropriate

In the wiki I consulted (osm.wiki/Map_Features#Highway)

I do not see any deprecation of "path" there.

Where a path has varying users a tag that avoids "ownership" is to be preferred.

My question to you: what is your interest in these tags?

Kia kaha

DaveF, kia ora (greetings

Thank you for your enquiry.
I suspect that we might have a different understanding of what is appropriate.

I have done more work today, principally to add the name "Kennet and Avon Canal towpath" to all relevant elements. In doing that I noted many route tags. Some, such as "Cycle & Foot path" appear to be deprecated. In other cases the tag "foot path" was applied even though those elements were also used by one or more cycle routes.

Please, for my education, explain the basis of your enquiry.

Kia kaha (take care, be strong)

ndm, thank you and not clear what you are asking.

Mike, I believe I have completed this task.

As I understand the route preferred by others, in part, used busy A road with no shoulders I have not mapped section from Grivan to Barhill.

WayMarkeTrails.org was very helpful for the overview.

Can you please review what i have done and offer comments as you see fit.

Alan

Mike, thank you for this prompt.
I had noticed route relations some time ago and could not see how to get started.
A few hours ago I completed creating and adding a route relationship for the route from Paisley Abbey to Bruce Statute Square, Ayr
Earlier in July I had changed the feature of many sections that were designated for both cyclists and pedestrians from "Cycle Path" to "Path" with the note these were shared use. A few days later there was push back from a contributor. I replied that, from my experience last November, these were shared paths. In an attempt to calm the waters and where there was a existing name of "NCR x" for a segment, I added "- Whithorn Way" to reinforce the shared nature of the path. And it was that experience that led to me to adding "(Whithorn Way") to the sections you have identified.
In the next few days I hope to complete this work from Ayr to Whithorn, deleting the names I have added and adding a route relationship.
Once again, thank you for your observations.
Kia kaha (take care, be strong)
Alan

PS: I also changed not a few sections where the description was "Footpath" and also had an NCR 7 relationship to "Path".

In other words the desire was to achieve consistency in first appearance for all readers / users.

GinaroZ, greetings

I have walked much of NCR 7 from Lochwinnoch to Ayr. And encountered many other walkers and a handful of cyclists over that four days.

I did so at the suggestion of the promoters of The Whithorn Way from Saint Mungos to Whithorn.

It was and continues to be my understanding that, unless specifically marked as "Cycles Only" that these are "Shared Ways" to be used other than by motorised vehicles. And many of the usages before my changes explicitly included "Foot = yes".

In numerous section approaching Ayr it was quite clear that NCR 7 was also designated Ayr Coastal Way.

The name on NCR 7 continues and no relationships were changed.

The line added is to recognise a pathway does exist between Albatross Close and the existing pathway in front of the club room leading to Samwell Drive