Okay I've changed this back and made a few more updates from the latest Mapillary images.

Oh yeah the crossings you added were good, thanks for that, it was more the turn restrictions which I didn't understand the intent behind.

I've fixed these in changeset/76133836. there were some conflicts when I made the upload, looks like you already started deleting some.

Would be good to understand what you were trying to do here?

I've fixed a bunch of these in changeset/76133836

also not sure what relation/10207313 is

relation/10207312 again isn't needed since there is only a signposted only left turn which is already mapped.

relation/8515478 isn't needed as you already have the no right turn restriction https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/I1AgsYQT-AX6atqvTO0D3g

way/738103276
I think you meant "public_transport" not "public_tra" ;-)
same for the second one you've added.

relation/10207320
relation/10207319
^ what are these two for?

Yes anything signposted as dismount should be tagged as bicycle=dismount see osm.wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions and access=*#List_of_possible_values

I was once riding in the opposite direction so never saw the sign and got told off by an elderly man that I should dismount.

Most bicycle routers should still route you through bicycle=dismount, but it will probably apply a speed penalty. Either way we need to map this accurately to reflect what's on the ground.

Access tags like bicycle= and foot= are completely separate things than what the feature is highway=footway, highway=cycleway.

2. Also for https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/724653636 you removed footway=crossing but according to footway=crossing that tag is used to mark segments of path which are crossings, which this segment is, so it should have that tag.

I know I use it all the time too, even though it's not signposted for bicycles.

With respect to https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/629142495 last time I was here there was a bicycle dismount sign -> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/UnMwUempYTkOa1uAti79vg

Is that sign no longer there? As you changed this from bicycle=dismount to bicycle=designated.

Oh yeah I missed that. Yes that implies that it's some kind of bicycle infrastructure and bicycles are allow. Thanks for confirming that.

In your change you've made Arthur Street continue further along past the intersection but according to the signage on the ground https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Sd8o0YzS4Az6az1JTMaE5Q the road name changes at the intersection, so I've reverted this change.

Also on the footbridge I couldn't see any signage that says it's a cycleway.

Yeah I can see this was only you're second edit. I certainly don't want to discourage you from more editing, please keep it up.

It's best practice to map what's on the ground osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground so generally what other maps say doesn't matter much compared to what information can be determined from on the ground.

According to https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/c0t-T4YQyaBPZt5Hugnj6g the pedestrian and bicycle lanes are segregated, but not physically separated, segregated=*. Has that changed recently or is the on the ground the same as that older Mapillary image? If it hasn't change recently we'll need to revert this back to a single way with segregated=yes.

This looks good, according to https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/eH7jFyeMbYDtnxlBUu6fgw it is physically separated so it's good that you've mapped it with a separate way. You could also update the road https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/34282299 to remove the bicycle tags which aren't really correct as it's not a counter flow cyclelane, it's a separate path.