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.

I know there are people merging ways when they have all the same attributes (check history of winnipeg area to see). So you might wanna coordinate so that you aren't just doing/undoing the same work over and over.

For anybody curious this changeset appears to be adding charging stations.

Looks like the changeset comment was incorrect. This is just adding a u turn restriction, nothing about keypads.

I contacted this user a month ago and never got a response, this changeset deleted bunch of things that still exist and look like they are staying long term due to recent improvements to them in this changeset changeset/164579441 I welcome you to make your additions of new or future roads without deleting things that still exist.

No response so I assume you were just confused because the path is too new to appear on satellite imagery, and I reverted in changeset/164579198

That bike path was just created in the past month so I think you must be confusing the new bike path (the one you deleted) with the old route it took here down Woodward?

You also added "foot=no" to a bunch of stuff. Is that correct? I thought foot is generally allowed