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.

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.