Falsernet - Don't add duplicate non-existent ways when a cycleway has ALREADY BEEN MAPPED.

Don't delete existing roads and then complain when they are restored.

Don't merge sections of road with different tagging - taking out a section of the national cycle network in the process,

Don't add ways where cycling is prohibited, without tagging them as such. From a UK perspective it would be useful if OSM set bicycle=no by default pavements in the same way as it does for motorways, but it doesn't. Fortunately this isn't a big problem because nobody maps pavements separately.

The presence of "sidewalks" (or pavements as we tend to call them in the UK) is very rarely tagged since they are a near universal feature of streets - only the absence in note worthy. However the best way to represent them is by tagging the highway with footway=yes/no unless they follow separate paths. Otherwise, pedestrian routes become excessively convoluted whenever this involves crossing a road. Certainly any separately mapped pavement needs to be explicitly tagged bicycle=no, otherwise they will be picked up by cycle routing applications.

I deleted it because it is duplicate mapping. The cycleway (actually a shared use pavement) was already mapped by tagging the highway of which it is part. There is no separate path and never has been.

Re: You don't mind this part of the footway to exist as a separate way:
way/964452554

A particularly absurd example - since there are pavements on both sides of the road, yet only one side is mapped explicitly. My main concern is the accuracy of routing for cyclists, so I have corrected it to indicate that cycling on pavements is illegal.

But in this case there IS NO SEPARATE WAY. So mapping a separate way is both inaccurate and adds clutter.

Viritually every street in the country has pavements - and in virtually every case these are not explicitly mapped (either by a tag or as a separate way). This is why it is generally those roads without pavements where the absence is noted with the tag sidewalk=no (eg. Birchwood Way). Unless you are proposing to ststematically map all the pavements alongside every street in Warrington then isolated sections of such mapping are misleading since they imply a physically separate route. It also makes routing excessively complicated.

I am simply restoring accuracy. There is no _separate_ path or cycleway at this point - just that cyclists are permitted to use the pavement which is indicated by tagging the highway. If you start to map pavements as separate ways that is going to create a huge amount of clutter since virtually all streets have pavements on either side - the way to deal with that is to tag the absence of footways on the few roads without them

The cycleway isn't mapped seperatel;y, but as a tag on the streets - so cannot be separated from the crossings. Though it looks as if someone has subsequently duplicated them.

This is not the case.

Maybe you saw it during temporary road works. The exit to Park Boulevard is one way (Southwards) only. The only entrance is from Wilderspool Causway.

Actally there are alternative on-street and off-street routes for this section.
See the Warrington BC cycle map:
https://www.warrington.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/Warrington%20Cycle%20Map%202020.pdf

but you are allowed to cycle on the busway from Murdishaw to the hospital.

I don't think cycling is allowed on that stretch of busway. Do you know if the council is proposing to change that?

Are you sure cyclists are prohibited from riding across the bridge?

You are the one making an argument - I just pointed out that the cycle track you had mapped did not exist. And corrected the map - I live here after all. You could have simply let it be (or perhaps apologised for the mistake), but you continued not only to post multiple times arguing the toss, but editing the map again to put the non-existent path back.

You may well think it ought to be a cycle track - and actually I would be in agreement with you and long ago asked the council to do this. But the map has to relflect the world as it is - not how you would like it to be.

Further note: I have long been aware of the absence of the dropped kerb to access Black Bear park from Kingsway:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/84818/
But that does not make pavement cycling legal.

No it doesn't.

That is a DIRECTION sign. The sign for a shared use footway is a circular blue sign with an image of a cycle and a pedestrian: Either one above the other for unsegregated shared use or side by side for segregated. Please familiarise yourself with the highway code before making any further changes to the map.

So do I. The footway isn't shared.

There is no cycle track across Kingsway Bridge. There was a temporary coned cycle lane, but that was removed after a couple of weeks.

Not that riding a horse or a moped up that very narrow cycle path would be sensible.

I think the -1 means opposite (which seems to be the only way to get a green arrow on open cycle map). In any case I st the whole thing as 2-way, which applies to most classes of user - and buses can only get in at one end.

I normally leave pedestrian and equestrian tags for cycleways as the default - the exception being the the ones to the south which specifically allow horses and mopeds.

The cycle prohibition only seems to apply to the northbound carriageway of the A5103. The only bit cyclists are banned from southbound is the M60 link road (the bus lane is only for busses). tags changed to reflect this. Busway changed to an access road.

I cannot find any tags that would ban through motor traffic.

I can't see any tags that would prohibit through motor traffic on the A 5130.