Re. the city's cycle map, I agree that it has not been updated to reflect the reality on the ground, probably because this MUP is still not finalized, even if it is demonstrably rideable. The city's various cycling network plan maps over the years do show a MUP has been approved for construction right there where it's under construction and people are riding.

I fully agree with tagging the reality on the ground the best we can, including but not limited to how they are actually being used. And the current status on the ground is neither de jure nor de facto a footway or a sidewalk.

I could see somebody downgrading it from cycleway to paved path if they feel strongly that it's not good enough; but downgrading it two a footpath based only on some third party blog post that does not even show a photo of the reality on the ground was not constructive. All that was visible in the blog post was a group of people riding on the adjacent road and some physical barriers that, if anything, proved that the MUP exists in some form and is protected.

I marked it as a path after actually riding it on my bicycle. It is paved throughout, as far as I remember. Not pretty, but it gets the job done. More importantly, if you look at the Strava Global Heat map, you can see that cyclists use it a lot.

So while we can debate that it is not in ideal condition, or that the powers that be need to complete it, it is today de facto used as a bicycle route by lots of people. And since many navigation apps won't route cyclists through ways that are tagged as footways, O would prefer to see it left as a path, not a footway.

And it is also tagged as an informal diet footway. If you have suggestions for how to tag it more clearly, please go ahead and make the changes. I don't see how it could be made any more specific.

> If most normal people would try to walk this path especially around the end of Citation Drive, they would have a very difficult time. It's very narrow (around 8-10" at most), off camber, and of an unstable dirt. At best it's a very sketchy scramble for experienced trail runners or hikers.

It is indeed currently labeled as sac_scale=mountain_hiking. Do you disagree with that?

Construction is best indicated by using the "construction" key, rather than setting "access=no". The "access" tag is meant for legal restrictions.

Sure, I can make the change, but I am uncertain of which segments were inadequate for cycling. You left a note close to the intersection of Weston at Finch, and commented on the rail underpass. Anything else?