No response so I'm going to revert this.

What makes this road residential? There is no residential here, just industrial.

You sure this was demolished? I was there recently, I think there is still a building there.

"as streets are not cut as expected"

I think you're expectation here is wrong. There is no reason to expect streets be "cut" at any specific point.

If your tool is getting confused by this, there are literally millions of other intersections that are like this, so how can your tool have any hope of working at all ever? Rather then find and change millions of intersections on osm, why not teach your tool to be a little smarter to understand this? Seems like the better path?

Surely there has to be millions of cases like this in OSM that your internal tool doesn't understand? So mutating them all on osm seems impractical vs just adding a bit more smarts to your tool seems more doable?

Why make this change at all? It doesn't change anything at all?

Thanks for noticing this! I visited to investigate. It looks like they had a concrete path at normal sidewalk width, and then later they added a second section of concrete the same width right beside it to double the width (one side of the concrete looks newer and recent). So it looks like it started looking like a normal sidewalk, hence the appearance in the aerial imagery, and then later they came back and widened it to make it a multi-use path. I will update the map to what I found on the ground.

Thanks for your detailed response and research on this!

Hmm, City of Winnipeg data does not have the apostrophe: https://data.winnipeg.ca/City-Planning/Map-of-Road-Network/2eba-wm4h (there are plenty of examples of street names in that data that do include an apostrophe, so its not a data limitation, eg Bishop's Lane, Bunn's Grove, Cactus Jack's Pl)

No worries, I understood where you were going. Thanks for your work in fixing things up as well!

Sorry that you have to clean up the mess this user caused. I reported them after I left the above comment and they have been banned. I tried to undo their damage but I wasn't fully successful. They have other changes that messed up other bus related things: another change messed with a bus loop off Raleigh. They have a short edit history and I think I commented on all their changesets that are vandalism so it should be easy to find them.

once again, please stop deleting informal paths! i've asked you multiple times!

The people of the city that I talk to refer to this section as a multiuse path. The material (concrete) that it is made out of has no effect what modes are allowed to use the path (for example the multiuse path along Jubilee is made out of concrete). I also frequent the space both on bike and foot and by vehicle. The multiuse path on the west side of the Maryland Bridge is a cycle + foot path on osm right now (I haven't touched it), so what you said is incorrect. As for portage and omands the last edit to that was 9 years ago, likely before that section was designated a multi-use path so pointing out a section of the map that needs to be updated provides nothing to your argument. I read the two pages that you linked but I don't see anything that supports your argument in them, would you care to point out the specific sections in them that support you?

You've changed the type to sidewalk, but the city page I linked clearly says that bicycles are allowed, and so the access type for bicycles of "not designated" is clearly incorrect.

I'm just noting here that this change is still being debating in the original changeset at changeset/166326635

This street does not exist, I've been there looking for it. Yes I know it is in the city of winnipeg streets data, but there are plenty of streets in that data that do not exist. I am going to revert this.

this changeset is also wrong and the description is also not about what the change actually did

This change actually changed some service roads that form a bus loop on private property into primary roads, which is far different from what the summary says. In addition, these roads are not primary roads. They are a bus loop on private property, so service road is a better label. I will revert this.

Hmm, being parallel to the road and separation (or lack there of) doesn't have any effect on whether it is a sidewalk or multiuse path as far as I am aware. The link to the city of Winnipeg website I sent above clearly shows that it is a multiuse path. So "cycle & foot path" seems to be the correct feature type for this.

According to https://data.winnipeg.ca/Transportation-Planning-Traffic-Management/Cycling-Network-Map/e9ms-78q6 these are indeed cycle paths near the bridge, I've gone ahead and fixed the map.

I would just suggest finding one changeset and commenting on it, here is one I found changeset/165341007 from the description (always the same) it sounds like maybe an automated tool is being used for that like streetscomplete?

But if you are breaking them into pieces because you need to put on different surfaces or different tags on the different pieces then that is fine. That will not be mergable after because of the different tags.