The Bay Cycleway relation contains the NCN 700 relation.

This will be fine so long as Sustrans are just deleting parts of NCN 700. PI guess at some point in the future they will sign an alternative route from Barrow to Leece.

Ground survey of the direction signage.

Stretches of the Bay Cycleway that are not parts of route 700 still have continuous Bay Cycleway signage, but no red 700 patches.

The Bay Cycleway is a CONTINUOUS signed route from Walney to Glasson Dock. Some parts of which are designated NCN 700 and some parts of which are not. One of these parts is the coast road.

Presumably "Simon Sustrans" will eventually get round to removing other other stretches of the Bay Cycleway form the NCN 700 relation - at which point I will need to repair the Bay Cycleway relation again.

The Bay Cycleway is now and always has been a continuous signed cycle route from Walney Island to Glasson Dock. Created by the Morecambe Bay Partnership.

It some point Sustrans allocated route 700 to its entire length. So the two routes could be considered the same thing - and were mapped as one relation.

A few years ago Sustrans decided to dedesignate parts of route 700 so now the two routes are different, so need separate relationships

Curious use of the word "Obviously".
There is nothing unsafe about the coast road. The attractiveness for cycling depends mainly on the wind direction.

And the real-world consequence of the Sustrans reclassifiation effort is that the key signs that have had the red patches covered are where the Bay Cycleway heads inland at Roosebeck & Bardsey. This means that anyone following the red 700 signage is actually directed to follow the A5087 all the way from Ulverston to Rampside.

The guide told us that all the trails we had ridden that day were permissive bridleways - so we could come back any time and ride them free of charge. However, she might have been using the term loosely as it was in the context of an e-bike tour. Several of the trails depicted on the cycleway map are in fact public bridleways.

Originally I thought it was going to be a temporary restriction. But, it has been blocked for two years now and there is a brand new sign at the south end of the road saying no through road except for cycles - so it looks to be permanent.

This area is CROW access land so walkers have the right to access to any paths running through it.

See:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/497afccfbe7a4db6884b8bedd23121f5

The problem isn't with Cyclestreets but with the underlying OSM data (ort rather lack of data). Cycle access is undefined by default for footways in OSM so in the absence of any explicit tagging cycle routers treat them as legitimate routes - hence the importance of explicit cycle access tagging (both of where cycling is allowed and where it isn't)

The claim was:
"this edit will have no effect whatsoever on cycle routing software".
Which is simply not the case. I offer not one but two different examples demonstrating that explicit tagging does indeed make a difference and folk continue argue, despite the clear evidence that data consumers do indeed treat tagged paths differently to untagged ones.

If a cycle router returns a route showing a pavement highlighted in a big thick green line then you must anticipate cyclists will ride that route rather than read the small print disclaimer that:
"Cycling in this section is not permitted."
Also, "not permitted" is not strong enough - that just implies the absence of a right of way which might be the case for a footpath on which the landowner might have no objection to people riding as opposed to a pavement where it is illegal and dangerous.

Have the dismount signs been removed?
There were still there a few months ago when I last checked.

Compare this illegal route:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/123396180/#quietest

To a similar section with explicitly tagged prohibition:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/123396186/#quietest

So it clearly does make a difference. Though it seems odd to say the least that someone should make multiple comments about an edit that they believe has no effect whatsoever!

I am not tagging for one renderer - It is a problem with all cycle routers. I merely raised it as a concrete example to disprove your claim that the edit would have no effect.

Indeed the usual reason that mappers take issue with explicit cycle access tagging is when they notice that a cycle router is no longer including an illegal route.

Unfortunately that is not the case. For example cyclOSM renders paths where cycling is not allowed in grey as rather than brown.

That discussion was initiated by TomJeffs who most definitely subscribes to the view that cycling on the pavement is legal - and complains that my tagging is banning cyclists, rather than accurately reflecting the legal status.

Of the 41 posts in the discussion:
3 were from TomJeffs posting specific examples.
11 pointed out that he was wrong - including all his specific examples
2 pointed out that bicycle=no is correct, but unnescessary (if only)
1 pointed out that cyclists do indeed ride illegally on a pavement near him.
13 were discussing public footpaths rather than pavements
3 were discussing dual carriageways
3 others were asides - not directly relevant to the discussion.

There does seem to be a small minority who think dismount is a better alternative - but this is most certainly not a consensus and the tag is very rarely used. The motivation in most cases seems to be to fool cycle routers to include illegal routes.

Of course the sensible way to represent pavements is simply to (correctly) apply the sidewalk tag to the highways that they are part of.

So you have posted (twice!) to point out that you agree the bicycle=no is accurate.

There are many other properties that are still to be tagged (width, surface, lighting and so on). If you are concerned about equestrian access then you could simply tag that yourself.

The default tagging for motor_vehicles is already correct - ie "no". Cycling is prohibited by law so access tagging needs to be changed from "Not Specified" to "no".

I'm not sure of the legal situation regarding horses so I left the default - "Not Specified". I will leave that for someone who knows about equestrian access rules.

That discussion appears to be between a single scofflaw cyclist who thinks cyclists ought to be allowed to ride on pavements and a shedload of other posters pointing out how he is wrong. UK traffic law is clear and unambiguous that cycling on pavements is illegal. OSM has to represent the world as it is - not how TomJeffs thinks it ought to be.

Some suggest that the tagging is correct, but unnecessary; that routers ought to know (unfortunately they don't). No one other than TomJeffs suggested that there is anything wrong with bicycle=no.

The discussion then moves on to footpaths away from roads where the situation is more ambiguous and needs to be decided on a case by case basis. But, this particular case is a bog standard pavement on which cycling is illegal.

I have not reverted anything - just tagged cycle access on pavements consistent with UK traffic law.