^^^Also circularised roundabout

You're not the first person to say that but there is such a thing as pavement mapping. In no way is it inaccurate if the pavement is actually there to map it and tag whether it's shared use or not. "Integral" is debatable, it's not unreasonable to argue that a kerb splits them up, in a much different way to a cycle lane. I've had some success getting changesets that do the same thing reverted by DWG. It can also lead to cycleway=track on roads with a pavement mapped alongside, because what would otherwise be mapped separately is just a tag that one might forget to check for, which ends up being legitimately inaccurate. Pavement mapping is a growing practice and you can now find entire towns (such as Newton-le-Willows) covered almost entirely by it.

OK after further investigation this was the fault of TomJeffs and his destructive mapping practices. Apologies, didn't mean to accuse you of deleting cycleways when you haven't here. You can see how I might have come to that conclusion with the history and vague changeset comments, but nonetheless, sorry mate.

Replacing cycleways with cycleway=track is just vandalism. It doesn't make the map any better or more accurate

Why do you still delete cycleways in favour of cycleway=track. It's not better in any way. And can you please use relevant changeset comments.

Should this road have access=permissive? It seems to have security and everything

This isn't exactly a pavement

Pavements I was not far from mapping. :/ stop deleting accurate mapping, for god's sake

Not sure how I managed to screw that up, sorted now. I seemed to be trying to add kerb height and typed it in the middle of a crossing:island tag. Cheers for pointing it out

A cycleway is anywhere that is designated for use by cyclists, right? I map the physical state of things, complexity notwithstanding, to be as accurate to the world as possible.

^^Accidentally used auto-inputted comment from last edit. I added railings and crossings as distinct ways in this edit.

I believe your way looks more correct but this (poorly worded) paragraph on the wiki seems to disagree. The 'inner' (right) side being the 'smooth' roadway side, which ironically is the side drawn with triangles. That is assuming I read it right; the article does little to inspire confidence. barrier=guard_rail#How_to_map

Just noticed that this way is on version 24 lol. Perhaps this is a controversial subject

Pete and I are usually at odds but I can confirm he's factually correct.

But of course all of us have to have disagreements here :/ and I would view this as a street-gone-pedestrian, just less glamorous than what you'd see in a town centre, where trunk roads are replaced with flagstones.

I don't think access=no is a particularly appropriate or necessary tag, as its function is covered by motor_vehicle=no. As a user of OSM carto and not CyclOSM it greys it out for me, though of course mapping based on the renderer's output is officially considered bad practice.

In fairness, I appreciate you mapping the cycle network, it's a good addition to have. Keep that stuff up. However all I ask is you alter non-cycleways as such rather than delete and replace with a tag on the road. It's only going to be remapped, again and again.

And I make a conscious effort to keep it contiguous whenever I'm making any relevant edits. You seem to treat pavements designated for cyclists as nonexistent. Yes if it's not designated as such, sure, maybe it's not a cycleway. For such cases I make an effort to instead use either path, or when it's explicitly designated for pedestrians (signed), footpath. Deletion of things that do exist (this includes pavements) is vandalism.

^^ Just stop deleting separately mapped cycleways and we will have no issues going forward. That's pretty much the only problem I've ever had with you. If you find it inconsistent that there's no pavement then either map it yourself (but I imagine that's foreign territory for your priorities) or say "hey do you mind adding this so it's consistent?" or words to that effect. It would take me five minutes, and squash any rifts in the local mapping community I know of - worth it right?

If that's the criteria then I'll map both

Can you stop deleting cycleways. You've not restored anything that wasn't there beforehand

The satellite imagery is actually outdated on this. Having been past I can confirm it's been demolished