1) Because there is ,,Tagging for the renderer" it doesn't mean editors should ignore how data are rendered (useful), quite opposite.

2) From the wiki ,,In any case the phrase is often misunderstood. The meaning of it is closer to the following:
Don't deliberately enter data incorrectly for the renderer (...) A misunderstanding comes when people say that you shouldn't tag something "for the renderer" even though the tags being used are accurate and not misleading." How were you mislead by name=Platfrom 1? And examples are creating objects to render 3D or map symbols, using industrial for flowers, road tunnels for CERN. 3) Name and ref have the same function of identification of objects, so they are not misleading, but ref is more appropriate as a unique name for a wider network for example roads. And maybe there is Network Rail's Great British Platform (or Station) Database with unique reference numbers for all platforms.

Replacing a name tag with a ref tag makes that platform number is not rendered. Please, restore the previous usefulness.

No, not only on the core network: https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/practical-guide-all/cycling

If there were signs that this for cycling, I'd revert these useless (useability subtracting values) edits and restore the designated tag. There is no evidence that cycling is not allowed here.

Good point about cornices, I haven't thought about this, although I was there on 27.06 and there was no snow at this viewpoint when there was a big patch on the main path and some below cliff edges.
Once on the Stob Dubh at Glen Coe I met about 4 pairs of not native English speakers, mainly Dutch, and maybe 2 pairs of English speakers on a beautiful day 80 miles from 2 million Glasgow conurbation, so it seems to me your mountain culture isn't very good for and liked by your people by not making it easier. Much less rewarding hikes, than it could be, of one the most popular mountain contribute to it. It could be good to learn something from more advanced cultures like in the Alps. So, except for less rewarding and less safe hiking, what is the value of not having railings?

Getting there requires boulder hopping so people with balance problems or in precarious conditions like ice or iced snow should find out fast it would be a bad idea to get there. Edges are not more precarious than at the main path, although I'm surprised that there are no railings at so popular mountain. I would put them at a few viewpoints to encourage people. Looking at the Walk Highland rating Ben Navis is highly undervalued I guess by people sticking only to the main path.

I found quite good correlations between the rating and the steepness of the steepest slopes of the mountain and approximations of its size and the Ben Navis is the biggest outlier - it is the black dot at right: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lXp_ZUSuLMExsSQNmctlaSiLQVkUX8lG/view from my unfinished page https://sites.google.com/site/europeanpeaks/home .

For me, it was the best part of the whole hike - one of the best hikes while the top was only good.

here it was changeset/99928652#map=19/56.79766/-4.99957

Hi
Why have you deleted the viewpoint at the top of the North East Buttress ridge?

I believe you. Cycling from E I couldn't see it and it is visible only at low grass. I would prefer to cycle on the N carriageway than on this sidewalk. Two years being deleted shows how it is maintained and useful.

Please use route=bicycle only to signed trails route=bicycle , not for one's fantasy trails. As real trails are more useful for less experienced tourists mapping fantasy trails is misleading and potentially harmful.

There are a number of alternatives where the green bicycle trail could go, Palackeho, N sidewalk (it has at least a barrier) or Alvinczyho street http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=16/48.7234/21.2674/standard&lonlats=21.276805,48.717901;21.25847,48.720634&nogos=21.270567,48.719135,48

But it doesn't matter - nobody maps planned motorways as finished because there is no other alternative route.

1) It is wide enough, like the signed cycleway on SE. At crossings kerbs are low.
2) In some renders it can be shown as good for cycling. It may be taken into account by routers like BRouter.
So what value does your tagging add for the path users?

It is not just a normal pavement for pedestrians, because of its remoteness it is shared with cyclists and it is also designed for cyclists. Pity you ignore the question whether such tagging adds any value for the path users.

Why? There is no sign it is not a shared use path. What value would add such tagging for the path users?

Do you mean sidewalk? I don't remember any big difference with the cycleway 76 on SE, beside the number

I've just checked it wasn't you who set bicycle=no. If crossing sidewalks are not for bicycles then setting bicycle=no is as needed as setting motor_vehicle=no, but making more problems for some routers like Brouter

Hello. Setting bicycle=no on a crossing=traffic_signals within
highway blocks the highway for bicycles, so I delete bicycle=no

Because they are unpaved what is the most important for road users.

A dokładniej przystanków PST z chodnikami powyżej.

Cześć. Możesz mi wytłumaczyć cel łączenia na mapie obiektów, które nie są połączone w rzeczywistości, bo są na różnych poziomach, jak w przypadku przystanków PST?

Dzięki za odpowiedz. Śmieszne, bo nie widzę powodu do takiej uchwały, tym bardziej, jeśli drogi i tak utrzymuje miasto na prawach powiatu.