That's what the sign says - or did 2 years ago when I surveyed it.

The law is the only relevant issue in determining whether cycling is permitted here.
Cycling is prohibited so cycling=no is correct.

Are you sure about the 1mph speed limit on the slip road from Chadderton Way leading to the Audi dealer?

Of course once you have mapped a separate pavement then cycle access is totally uncontroversial from the perspective of law abiding citizens.

THE LAW - Highway Code Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

OSM - cycling=no
Indicates that riding bicycle is not allowed.

The best way to map pavements is as to use sidewalk tags on the highway - In the real world pedestrians can cross the road anywhere the like rather than just at the fictional "crossings" that mappers have to include to make the pavement reachable at all.

Richard: The issue here is not footpaths or public rights of way where a landowner may or may not permit cycling, but pavements where cycling is prohibited by law.

You claim that cycle routers will not send cyclists along footways by choice - but then go on to describe situations where cycle routers choose to do exactly that.

OSM must reflect the world as it is not how you wish it was.

The law is clear that cycling on pavements is prohibited; there is no exception for disabled people or children.

And when folk rely on personal abuse to make a point it is a sure sign that their argument is without merit.

And within a matter of hours TomJeffs has resumed his vandalism of my edits:
changeset/175476817

Can you please stop your repeated vandalism.

Cycling on the pavement is ILLEGAL in the UK.

Highway Code:
Rule 81
Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

Highway Code
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

The most critical information required by cycle routing algorithms is knowing where cycling is allowed and where it is not. If you systematically delete cycle access tags then routers are likely to send cyclists on illegal routes.

Highway Code:
"Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement."

That is clear and unambiguous. There is no exception for disabled cyclists.

WRT mobility aids, Disabled folk are permitted to use motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters limited to 4mph (not bicycles) according to pedestrian rules. It would clearly be absurd to designate all pedestrian accessible ways as "motor_vehicle=yes" on those grounds.

The map must reflect what is actually there on the ground - not what you think ought to be there or what you think the law ought to say.

The "cycleway=opposite_track" tag is now deprecated. The recommended way to map contraflow cycleways is to use the "oneway:bicycle=no" tag in combination with normal cycleway tags.

The sign does NOT refer to the pavement - it is advice to cyclists re-joining the carriageway from what is clearly the END of the shared use section. (indicated by painted markings and tactile paving)

IF it was meant to apply to the bridge then there would be signage at the other end. There is no such signage.

Highway Code
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Motorways are perfectly relevant since they are identical to pavements (which this is) in terms of legality of cycling. In both cases cycling is illegal so the appropriate tag is bicycle=no. Simple, unambiguous and understood by everybody.

The only difference is that you personally seem to have a problem with the law with regard to pavement cycling evidenced by multiple examples of you mapping pavements (and even places where cycling is explicitly prohibited) as cycleways - and taking issue at great length when that is corrected.

Even in cases like this, where there are three separate ways intended for cycle, motor & pedestrian traffic, pedestrians are legally permitted to walk on all three. Cyclists may use the cycleway or the general carriageway, but not the footway. Motors must use the carriageway.

Nobody else interprets the tag in that way. Note how the cyclOSM rendering treats it differently. Cycle routing algorithms include "dismount" sections - so it is important not to use this tag for places where cycling is prohibited.

"dismount" is used for stretches of legally designated cycleway are dangerous to ride (eg the Lancaster Canal tow path by the Water Witch). Not places where it is illegal such as pavements or motorways.

The most common use of the cyclist dismount sign in the UK is to mark the end of a cycleway (as is the case here) where cyclists must rejoin the carriageway.

So the more relevant question is why a mapper who claims that "dismount" and "no" mean exactly the same thing would be at all interested in which tag was used.

And since the restriction on pavements is identical to that on motorways (in both cases riding a bike is illegal - in both cases a legal user of the way can transport a bicycle so long as they don't ride it), I am anticipating you "correcting" the cycle access tags on the M6 in the near future.

Unlike walking on cycleways, cycling on the pavement is illegal - so these should most definitely be tagged bicycle=no.

foot=no should only be used in situations where walking is prohibited (ie with a circular sign with a red outline and a black pedestrian). While these sections are designed for cycle use, it is still perfectly legal to walk there.