oneway:bicycle=no might work. I shall try that and check back in a week or so once things have updated.

Furthermore, creating separate cycleways causes rendering issues on roads where those cycleways are preceded or followed by on-road cycle lanes, which editors usually ignore.

Is there perhaps a tag for the cycleway that would let those routing websites see it as bidirectional?

I think there are merits to cycleway tags and separate cycleways. I tend to use the former as they more closely follow the road and don't require dozens of separate connections. And the cycleway along the A555 is a shared footway, and is therefore a part of the highway - not separated. I only use separate cycleways when they are physically disconnected from the highway.

It isn't currently shown on Stockport's definitive map which suggests it isn't a bridle path - https://www.stockport.gov.uk/stockport-public-rights-of-way/prow-map

The map may be out of date though, I don't know the area well enough to look for any definitive map modification orders.

I would still tag it as a walking and cycling path, and add horse access. Bridleways have a specific legal definition which this route doesn't yet appear to have.

I mean it doesn't make much difference tbh, but it is signed as a cycleway. It's also named after an Olympic cyclist.

https://www.stockport.gov.uk/cycle-routes/alan-newton-way

Ah right thanks for that clarification. What I'm really looking for is a tag that says "you'd be crazy to try cycling along here". Could use that for the more terrifying roads too. I do wonder though if routing software might see the dismount tag and reroute to a faster route, as cycling is faster than walking.

I often tag footpaths with dismount because a dismounted cyclist is, after all, a pedestrian :)

Jesus Christ, have a listen to yourself "please familiarise yourself with the highway code".

Seriously can't be arsed arguing about it. Councils fuck things up all the time with misplaced signage. Go and bore someone else.

I use track to denote a shared footway.

Here's the video - https://twitter.com/CyclingStIves/status/1259147713515597825?s=20

Apologies, I'm not from the area but I saw a video on Twitter of a user riding across it without issue, stating that many other people are on it. I'm not familiar enough with the area to "open" the roads connected to it, but I think we can presume that it's open for business, even if the ribbon hasn't been cut.

I've looked on Tameside's online definitive map (it's right at the northern edge of their area), there is a footpath through the farm but the owner may have diverted it. Whether that's been done unlawfully or not is probably a matter for the council's footpaths officer, who I suggest you contact. It might also be the case that a DMMO hasn't been reflected on Tameside's map. But the only way to know for sure will be to contact the footpath officer, who will be able to clarify - https://www.tameside.gov.uk/rightsofway#t9

Thanks, this is why I never attach areas to roads. I've corrected this now, I think.

I was working through and missed some sections. The main road is open now and you can cycle along it, but I'm not quite clear which side road alignment is correct. I shall look again.

J'ai utilisé "vélo & sentier" qui est fondamentalement la même chose qu'un sentier avec une voie piétonne désignée et une piste cyclable désignée?

Thanks, on Google Maps you could add an "avoid" field to indicate that a cycle path wasn't suitable, I'm still learning OSM so I just want to make sure that nobody on a road bike gets sent up a trail like this. Of course a mountain bike is ok, but then again, legally I think cycling on this path is frowned upon as I saw a few "no cycling" signs on gates. They weren't legal prohibitions though, just "you have no right to cycle here" warnings.

ok thanks, I'll do that. I'm not actually certain if legally, bicycles are allowed down there. I'm a member of the canal society and I know that some sections beyond Mount Sion are privately owned and not rights of way. Not that that's all that important tbh. I'll mark it as "dismount".

I should add that eastward from the Water St bridge to Hinds Lane, the towpath surface is excellent and very suitable for cycling.

Yes it can, but some skill is required. From Radcliffe to around the Steam Crane, the towpath is basically setts, but they're in very poor shape with some holes, tree roots pushing them around, and a lot of subsidence near the coping stones. Some places, particularly under the bridges, can be quite dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. When looking to see if something is a cycle path or footpath I tend to think "if I was on a sit up and beg bike with a basket full of shopping, would I want to come down here?" Unfortunately that section of the canal is a definite no. And road bikes absolutely cannot get down there, even if they get past the setts the remainder all the way down to Ringley Village is thick, gloopy mud.

It isn't fully complete, there are still roadworks on some of the junctions (the Mere Junction is still a mess), but I think it's all "open" now. The cycle route isn't properly surfaced but the layout is 99% there. Next time I cycle down it I'll pay more attention to the signage, which should be mostly in place now.

Thanks, I've been looking for but so far haven't found new road names for this project. I guess at some point the council will update the local map to include new road names (for instance the new link road between Cherry Tree Lane and the old A556). I just graded it a tertiary road because, having used it a few times, it's a fairly narrow, quiet road with not much traffic on it. I'll change it to a secondary.