Cycleway 27 is not hidden on a footway, any more than it is hidden on a highway (like the adjoining Middleton Road). Cyclists who want to follow C27 can do so on the other Map Layers - CyclOSM / Cycle Map.

The logical conclusion of your argument would be that the 'on the ground truth' (of the painted signs) should be checked with a lawyer before being mapped.

This path has a clear (to me, subjectively) vibe of a footpath rather than a cyclepath.

If you change it back, I won't change it back again - but to guard against anyone else doing so, you might put your point about the reason to ignore the on-the-ground signs in a note tag?

I've long thought there should be a multicolour red/blue way on osm.org for cycleways that are explicitly walkable and footways that are explicitly cyclable - but last time I looked at the code, all elements are monocolour only.

Hi there - in this change, you removed an overhead gantry, the kind that supports signage over a roadway. Did you mean to delete it - is it really gone from the road in reality?

I've added explicit foot tagging to these newly-labelled cycleways. (changeset/149893965)

I use an app (Guru Maps) that refuses to route pedestrians on cycleways unless foot routing access tags are explicitly set. There are probably others.

Thanks!

Thanks for adding these. For access, would it be better to have access=emergency (and maybe emergency=designated), or is it literally police only?

Done!

I've included the minor 'discs', but not the flappy papery ones (which I think are temporary). I'll add this one, this evening.

I missed that new guidepost - thanks for adding it. Strongly indicates that the route goes around - not through - this park. I'll correct this area this evening.

Changes based on the signage on the ground - acouple of different crossings and some places where the route actually goes through a green space - not too many of those.

I've made a few changes to the Green Link Walk relations following an in person survey. GPXs uploaded. I've also added the (patchy) signposts

Thank you very much!

Hi there, thanks for adding this. It's already proving useful according to the diamondgeezer commentariat https://tridentscan.jaggedseam.com/dg/3409350966603436322/

But I think some of the ways are missing from the southern two segments.

Thanks again Bernard - I had thought I'd done this - maybe because there were two road duplications in the 'other' one. It's done now in changeset/148091700.

I think I've resolved this and the other one - thanks Bernard!

Ken

I'll let you know when complete - likely this evening.

Will do. I think there are occasional edge issues with the Relatify tool when you're working with it and another editor in close proximity.

Hi there - you requested a review of this. The only think I can spot is that you could have put the https:// at the start of the website address.

Oh - my mistake - the gate itself has already got this tagging. I've foudn the planning permission for the gate - which says 'dusk to dawn' and notes that the gate is temporary until the site on the south side of Zinc Street is complete. I'll add to the note.

if only the morning opening time was known

This could probably be encoded with one of those conditional access things. Something like foot:conditional=yes @ (08:00-20:00) ; foot=private ; motor_vehicle=no .