Noted! I will leave this as a note instead of a fixme

I reread this discussion to put things into perspective and just noticed that you never addressed mapping pelican crossings as zebra when they were originally mapped as pelican. That's something one can objectively say is inaccurate. Though in fairness you never explicitly claimed to hold accuracy as a principle.

No need to get heated, this was never a personal issue, though now you've brought things up, let's address. (Things that I am surprised you remembered was the same specific user, let alone can list in great detail, clearly control over your turf is very important to you.)

Firstly - that's an issue for the data working group and associates now. (Or I could just remap the data you destroyed and we call it a day, but I have a feeling this is your choice of hill on which to succumb. I've deliberately left it untouched so as not to tamper.)

Second - mistakes may have been made, but I don't recall "complaining". I am willing to accept where it is objective fact that my edits aren't accurate. (Keep in mind data accuracy is of high priority on this platform.) In good faith I aim to map with accuracy as my ultimate goal. (Regardless, thanks for the reminder to survey the location myself, I've been meaning to.)

Thirdly - "nobody"? That's not very observant. A minority of mappers? Sure, point taken in that case. More importantly, it would be relatively achievable to implement a routing algorithm patch, such that within the UK, map interpreters could exclude pavements from bicycle routing, or not 'prefer' them in the same way they prefer dedicated cycle infrastructure over regular public roads, at least if the routing algorithm is the implementer's own code. (Bearing in mind enforcement of such law is exceedingly rare.) Additionally, there's no obvious responsibility to tag every detail as such unless the data is misleading or inaccurate otherwise.

I think I'll leave things at that.

Being tagged as pavements without explicitly cycle=yes should be enough. That's a problem for the routing applications to deal with. In the meantime, tag to your heart's content, but don't damage accurate data for the sake of what you personally believe to be "less clutter"

"Separate" is subjective language. There's a kerb between them, I would consider that separate, but that's obviously down to individual opinion. Regardless, there is no accepted practice of deleting cycleways mapped as separate ways because you think they are nicer as tags along the road. I don't see why you're continuing this narrative, and I'm hopeful that someone more senior and qualified will revert your changeset(s) upon my request, such that I can withdraw from this unproductive argument.

I'd liken mapping for routing to mapping for the renderer. The fact of the matter is it's both local convention and accepted mapping practice to map pavements dedicated as cycleways as their own independent way. Also as Anton mentioned, the wiki does specify it is perfectly acceptable to map pavements separately. And this is the case in a lot of junctions in the local area. So why you'd choose to destroy accurate data here specifically is beyond me. Perhaps because you believe I can't edit your precious cycle routes. I have contacted the Data Working Group about the most recent changeset here.

Just wanna say thank you for mapping things so accurately. Much better than any imported data I've seen. :)

"Clutter" is irrelevant when the ways describe actual real life features. You're making it *less* accurate - there is no restoration here.

Pete why are you continually destroying accurate data

It's worth noting that the service road you converted to a cycle path is frequently used as a service road by motor vehicles to access the garden allotments.

Why have you changed pelican crossings to be tagged as zebra crossings and disconnected them from pavements and cycle paths?

Very good very good. Aside from it being non-open source data, I can appreciate de-googlifying things. Let me know if anything similar could use tidying up! :)

If you say so. And good glad it's sorted.

The junction is called the Bowdon Interchange though? Also what's with the jagged bits that weren't there before?

It was set before actually, just such that when zooming out the bridges overlapped the roundabout. It tidies up the appearance of the junction. Think of it this way - the whole roundabout itself doesn't have motorway rules or restrictions, and the edge of the roundabout is the distinct line from which motorway rules apply (e.g. you're not allowed to go beyond that on foot).

Ok I can't read apparently

Valid point as to short-term closures. However I can't find a reference to six months no matter how much reading CtrlF-ing I do. Bit too authoritative of a tone to not have a specific citation, even if the figure is entirely reasonable.

Source on the 6 month figure?

The towns are divided by the Mersey - the historical divider between Lancashire and Cheshire. Yes they're the same borough, which is why I'm not trying to get a borough-level boundary. Yes they're unparished, but they're separate towns with distinct identities within the borough, and not just the same town as the current boundaries imply. (If you don't believe me ask any local.)

They're not signed IRL as Birchwood to Sankey Way, plus it's effectively longer. It's probably just there as a contingency in case of floods or closures so imo it doesn't make sense to have mapped here.