Those traffic signals have nothing to do with the crossings - just traffic flows from other arms of the junction. ie the junction is signal controlled but the crossings are not.

You suggest that "Pedestrians cross when the lights are red", but there is no such time. If they are red for traffic approaching from one arm then they will be green for traffic approaching from a different direction. There is no time allocated for pedestrians at all.

The issue of buttons is entirely irrelevant - the issue is the absence of any signal control of the crossing. There is nothing that a button could request.

It is the case that some of the crossings only cross a single lane approaching from one direction so there are times when that is held at red. But this still does not constitute a signal controlled crossing. At a signal controlled crossing when the pedestrian signal turns red then the carriageway signal must remain on red long enough for pedestrians to cross - and on puffin crossings this is detected. At these crossings the traffic may be stopped, but could start at any instant.

It is a zebra (ie pedestrian only) crossing.
Highway Code rule 81:
"Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing."

You need signage to indicate that a formal crossing may be used by cyclists or horses - by default they are for exclusive pedestrian use (same as for pavements). In the case of a zebra crossing this would be indicated by a parallel crossing edged by large white square dots. This zebra crossing has no such markings, therefore it is not a cycle crossing.

So presumably when you visited a year ago you will have noticed the sign prohibiting cycling, which begs the question - why did you ask if it was recent?

It is not and has never been a cycle route despite Sustains misleading mapping. If folk want there to be a cycle route they need to lobby the council to create one - not put misleading tags on OSM.

Unfortunately the default tagging for pavements is "Not Specified" - exactly the same as for trunk roads. This confuses cycle routing applications into recommending illegal routes.

The ways represent ways of finite width as linear features, The line represents the whole width of the way - not a zero width line.. Similarly, road junctions are mapped as a point even though they occupy a finite area.

So, at a junction between a residential road and a A road you meet at a point in the centre of the A road - you don't map a tiny stub of A road from the centre to the give way line.

No, the NO CYCLING sign is longstanding. It was there over 15 years ago:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aYbpnChBXXLf8kyQ8

I suspect the other mapper had not visited the site and was trying to mislead cycle routing tools to follow Sustrans mapping, which often fails to correspond to legal or practical routes.

The map needs to reflect the world as it is - not the wishful thinking of Sustrans.

Unfortunately the default tagging for trunk roads is "Not Specified".

Pavement cycling is ILLEGAL in the UK.
cycling = no is therefore the correct designation. Please stop deleting my edits.

That would make no sense.

Tactile paving is only ever used at the ends of a crossing to indicate to visually impaired people that they are about to step onto the carriageway. See:
tactile_paving=yes
Sometimes crossings are not provided with this and sometimes the are - hence the tag. But tactile paving is never applied all the way across.

Even more curious.

There doesn't seem to be a sign on the south bound approach on the A5 from Bangor, and the sign on the north bound approach doesn't specify which direction on the A55.

If there are such signs on all the approaches, this is evidence that they are not of themselves prohibition signs. Otherwise it would be illegal to ride through the roundabout S-N on the A5. You have not marked a ban from any of the signs, nor are there any signs at the places you have mapped a ban.

For a ban to be legal there must be a traffic regulation order. So I can only conclude there isn't actually a ban.

Curious.

That sign appears to be intended as advance waring of a cycle ban, rather a prohibition itself. But there are no signs actually banning cyclists at the junction itself, or at the roundabout exit.

The same appears to be the case at the other end, with advanced signs on the approaches to the roundabout at LLanfairfechan, but no indication of an actual ban at the roundabout exit.

Do you know if there is a traffic regulation order in place actually prohibiting pedal cycles from using that stretch of road, or are the signs over enthusiastic promotion of the national cycle network by Sustrans?

Are you sure cycling is prohibited? It seems very unlikely that cycling would be banned from a road where walking is allowed.

Using maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_restricted is incorrect in Wales. It means 30mph!

I guess there could be a CY:nsl_restricted tag.

I am using the Welsh government map of exceptions:
https://datamap.gov.wales/maps/roads-affected-by-changes-to-the-speed-limit-on-re/view#/
It looks like I missed that one.

Waiting for someone to get round to locating every individual sign post will mean that the map will continue to be incorrect for 99% of Welsh roads for decades (there are still plenty of roads that have not caught up with the speed limit changes to 40 or 50 mph from 20 years ago. Even then mistakes will still be made.

no it was an accident

Indeed.

It is the END of the cycleway from the south (crossing the road) - which means it is the start of the cycleway heading in the opposite direction. ie SOUTH across the road.

Highway Code Rule 62
Cycle tracks may run alongside footpaths or pavements and be separated by a feature such as a change of material, a verge, a kerb or a white line. You MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath.

Exactly the same as motorists reaching the end of a cul-de-sac - or perhaps trying to traverse the low traffic zone on Grange Avenue.

If the council had intended for there to be a continuous route they would have not have placed clear signs indicating the end of the cycle route and they would have provided a parallel crossing that was legal for cyclists to use.

The map has to reflect the world as it is, not how you would like it to be. By all means launch a campaign to legalise pavement cycling, but until that is the case cycling on footways is illegal and the appropriate tag is "no".

Exactly the same as drivers of motor vehicles who might want to drive to along routes where motor vehicles are prohibited.

The idea is to be more specific from the perspective of cyclists.. The default access for footpaths is undefined which isn't very helpful. I am trying to distinguish those paths were cycling is prohibited (eg pavements or where there are no cycling signs by explicitly tagging "Bicycles=no" and those where there is a wide surfaced route as paths (where the default is "Bicycles=yes")