There is no prohibition of walking on cycleways or indeed carriageways unless explicitly signed (eg on motorways).

In The UK prohibitions apply to bigger more dangerous vehicles - so motor vehicles are not allowed to use cycleways - and it is illegal to cycle on pavements (which should be tagged "bicycle=no" on OSM)

The markings indicate the opposite:
The arrow indicates that cyclists coming across the crossing MUST turn right onto the cycleway. There is another arrow on the cycleway indicating that cyclists coming the other way must turn left onto the crossing. You can see the markings more clearly on this steetview image from 2009:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XLQgZjei4uJxRVxDA

I did compose an explanation, but must have forgotten to click the "comment button"

I got the speed limit boundary wrong because I was fixing it relative to the (now mapped) crossing island, rather than the bridge. I assumed that the crossing point had been mapped correctly.

So the speed limit signs and path crossing point have now been moved to the correct position - some way south of the bridge.

Thinking about it, the bridge should probably not be mapped as the canal is mapped as in a tunnel.

I have repositioned the crossing and the speed limit signs to the correct position someway south of the bridge and routed pedestrians following the tow path to the safe crossing, while maintaining the continuity of the ringway route This segment was then split to indicate parts where it is a crossing, parts where it is the pavement and part where it crosses the bridge.

That was a long time ago - a traffic regulation order came into effect a few weeks ago. However, there is still an old faded 5mph sign hidden in the bushes, which I guess they didn't notice when they set up the 20mph zone signage. They have also forgot to burn off some 30mph roundels painted on the roads - perhaps that is a job for a different team.

I'm not sure so I have detagged them, but most appear to be shared footways serving several properties rather than private paths.

The complete absence of blue signs.

It is illegal to cycle on pavements in the UK - so the onus is very much on those who claim that cycling is allowed to provide evidence. You cannot simply assume that cycling is allowed because it intersects with other ways where cycling is designated. You have to map what is there on the ground, rather than what you think ought to be.

In this case it is particularly clear that not only is the pavement not signed for shared use, but not designed for that purpose either. Just compare the obvious differences to the clearly signed and surfaced shared use pavement on the other side of the road. This is most obvious at the approach the fairly recently reconstructed junction with the Bay Gateway. Here the pavements have been newly designed and constructed for their purpose. You can see that the pavement on the NE side of the road has been constructed to the minimum standard (at the time) for unsegregated shared use (3m), while the pavement on the SW side is designed to minimum footway width (1.8m).

UK traffic law.
It is illegal to cycle on pavement unless explicitly signed as shared use. (these are the blue circular signs with a white cycle and pedestrian)
There are no such signs on this pavement. Nor is there any sign of it having been physically converted for shared use.

Indeed there is an explicit sign at the toucan crossing at the western end pointing out that that the cycleway is on the other (south) side of the road. And that has been resurfaced for cycle use and very clearly signed as shared use, with frequent blue signs.

Making corrections is one thing, but simply deleting another mappers tags within a few hours of those changes based on what appears to be a thinly disguised personal animosity is vandalism.

Yes, of course I am aware that the speed limit was 20 mph for a time - I mapped it myself! The speed limit signs were removed several months ago and I have been waiting to see if this was temporary damage or a permanent change.

I don't think I created any of these - just edited them to indicate that cycling is prohibited.

They are entirely within a 20 mph zone, and only accessible from streets with 20 mph signage. There is no contradictory signage at the entrance, so that is the speed limit that applies.

The same is true at every other example where a dual carriageway ends and becomes a single carriageway. Each carriageway of the dual carriageway is represented as a line following the centre line of that carriageway - the single carriageway is represented as a line following the centre line of that. This necessarily involves bending the ends of each of the duel carriageways to meet the end of the single carriageway. This is just an example of exactly that.

Also, odd definitions are also used in the UK. OSM uses "Trunk" for primary roads and "Primary" for bog standard A roads. In the official road hierarchy "Trunk" is applied to the the strategic highway network managed nationally - and does mot include this road.

On the editor the default is shown as "bicycle=Not Specified" for trunk roads (exactly the same as for pavements). Primary roads are OK,

I would not tag it at all - there is simply one continuous paved surface with no kerbs or lane markings. It looks as if it has been widened at some point and the edging stones of the original road and pavement have been left in place.

It is not a driveway because (as you observed) it serves more than one property, whereas in OSM a driveway is defined as minor service road leading to a specific property. For the same reason it access cannot be private – since access is needed to reach destinations further down the road.

It is common for early 21st century culs-de-sacs to be designed in this way, with the last few houses on each twig of the tree being constructed to a lower standard, with shared surfaces and no turning circle at the end. These public highways on which the normal rules of the road (including speed limits) apply.

These stretches tend not to be adopted by the local highway authority, but that is just a matter of who is responsible for the maintenance – not an access limitation. Hence, you cannot deduce access restrictions based on land registry plots. Defining access as private would mean that the first plot of land that any unadopted cul-de-sac crossed would be a ransom strip.

Have you discussed this with the landowner (National Trust)? They have been systematically tagging access for paths on their land. See note on previous edit:

Paths data. All edits have been made as part of an organised editing activity agreed with OSM board members, and in consultation with National Trust rangers. For more info please see: Organised Editing/Activities/National Trust Paths - OpenStreetMap Wiki

This does seem to be rather an obsession on your part.
In this case the private parts of the drives have been separated from the the parts within the highway boundary.

If it is not a crossing then it was the original tagging it as a crossing was incorrect.

These are simply junctions.

Cycling on pavements is illegal unless signed otherwise - so it is the absence of any signs allowing cycling that is the key.

So the point at which the pavement heading out from Lascaster ceases to be shared use is actually at the junction before the dismount sign. You can see shared use signs and give way markings on the pavement heading west, but not east. And you can see cycleway markings in each direction at all the junctions it crosses till it reaches the other end at Lansil Way.

I guess the Dismount Sign in this case is just a reminder to those who inadvertently continue to ride illegally on the pavement. It has no legal meaning and are used (some would say abused) for a wide range of different purposes.