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.

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.