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.

If you approach northbound (and at every crossing) then what you see is a large upside down cycle symbol and double dashed line give way marking across the whole width of the cycleway. If it was a two-way route then what you would see would be the above just on the right hand side and a right way up cycle symbol on the left.

Pedestrians need the blue segregation signage to show where they can expect to encounter cyclists (These are used incorrectly on the section to the south where there is no segregation.)

And, in the case of that particular stretch of cycleway the markings are clearly indicating one way use. The cycleway forks off the carriageway - which would be dangerous in the opposite direction. The cycle symbols face in one direction, the give way markings all apply in that direction.

Further south it degenerates into an unsegregated shared use pavement. I guess it is still intended for one way use and it would be difficult to access the far end from the other direction, but there is no signage to make that explicit.

UK traffic law

That's what the sign says - or did 2 years ago when I surveyed it.

The law is the only relevant issue in determining whether cycling is permitted here.
Cycling is prohibited so cycling=no is correct.

Are you sure about the 1mph speed limit on the slip road from Chadderton Way leading to the Audi dealer?

Of course once you have mapped a separate pavement then cycle access is totally uncontroversial from the perspective of law abiding citizens.

THE LAW - Highway Code Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

OSM - cycling=no
Indicates that riding bicycle is not allowed.

The best way to map pavements is as to use sidewalk tags on the highway - In the real world pedestrians can cross the road anywhere the like rather than just at the fictional "crossings" that mappers have to include to make the pavement reachable at all.

Richard: The issue here is not footpaths or public rights of way where a landowner may or may not permit cycling, but pavements where cycling is prohibited by law.

You claim that cycle routers will not send cyclists along footways by choice - but then go on to describe situations where cycle routers choose to do exactly that.

OSM must reflect the world as it is not how you wish it was.

The law is clear that cycling on pavements is prohibited; there is no exception for disabled people or children.

And when folk rely on personal abuse to make a point it is a sure sign that their argument is without merit.

And within a matter of hours TomJeffs has resumed his vandalism of my edits:
changeset/175476817

Can you please stop your repeated vandalism.

Cycling on the pavement is ILLEGAL in the UK.

Highway Code:
Rule 81
Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

Highway Code
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

The most critical information required by cycle routing algorithms is knowing where cycling is allowed and where it is not. If you systematically delete cycle access tags then routers are likely to send cyclists on illegal routes.