Also added park, playground, allotments, linked up Rylands Rec pathway. Changeset area is huge due to huge residential zone.

Does it no longer exist?

Not a single one of these ways is a pavement. I'm not even gonna argue whether bicycle=no is appropriate but please please please make better changeset comments.

Not that most people in Warrington care, or ever get in any trouble for not caring. But regardless of that, I'm just making clear I additionally disagree with Pete's tagging practice of covering ALL crossings with bicycle=no.

^^ This is how it's supposed to work afaik.

Also, I'd like to bring up the changing of crossings in which cycling isn't specifically made illegal to bicycle=no doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Maybe there's debate to be had. But they're definitely not pavements, so "no cycling on the pavement" as a changeset comment comes off a bit disingenuous. Unless there's a legal text you can point to? Sure, the law as I am aware namedrops pelicans, puffins and zebras, but not uncontrolled and unmarked crossings and such.

^^ tagging dismount allows routing only in the case that it's somehow faster to walk while pushing the bike. I feel like you may be tagging just for the CyclOSM renderer. Also note that this isn't even something agreed upon in the OSM community. Needs more discussion in general. In Australia they use statewide tags depending on cycling's legality on pavements (tagged on the boundary relation).

Legally you can push a bike along a pavement. Even a motorbike. Legal precedent.

^^^ Regarding riding on the pavement, it's been said on the Discord server that we should standardise a tag on the country boundary or something like that. Not an edit I feel comfortable making. In the meantime I've been using bicycle=dismount wherever riding isn't permitted.

In the future I'd like a routing interface that lets me override and route for riding along the pavement, because for some roads it's a bit suicidal to ride on the road. Plus it's not locally enforced afaik, especially with how copious our sometimes vaguely signed cycleways are.

Tl;dr: pavement cycling - hot topic.

Yeah, it's probably worth bringing up. Must admit people have said I should use the mailing list for issues like this, but I haven't even tried to figure out how that works - probably worth a go at this point. Riding bikes on pavements being particularly contentious with a local mapper (living in Warrington); I'm of the mindset that bicycle=no on everything not explicitly a cycleway isn't the best approach.

I did notice that crossing seems much more common on ways than crossing_ref, unlike nodes. Also noteworthy that iD editor seems to endorse crossing over crossing_ref. (Yes I'm an iD pleb.) Plus personally I find traffic_signals to be redundant, as the crossing type indicates that anyway. (My understanding is that toucan, pelican, puffin, controlled are fully signal controlled, uncontrolled has traffic lights {or is part of a junction with them} but doesn't provide signals for pedestrians, and unmarked/marked aren't intended for signalled crossings.) Though foreign countries obviously don't have the same crossing types and rules; in NYC for example, marked is probably the most common tag for signal controlled crossings.

I would like to add that most of my interactions in changeset comments comprise of heated arguments over things like separately mapping cycleways as pavements, where people whine that it's an "integral part of the highway" and should be deleted in favour of tags, so an actual discussion of statistics and common practice has been refreshing lol.

^^^ If you want me to provide citations let me know, I can go and have a look

To my knowledge that's its name; maybe not in an official capacity. You can search it and find info about the junction. And the interchange thing, well, it's not uncommon practice to include that in exit names to keep things consistent. I remember reading, probably on the wiki, that "crossing=" is actually in more common use than "crossing_ref=", and seems to be the more modern tagging practice. At least it's the norm from what I've seen/edited. Regarding bicycle=yes, I read that it's become officially regarded as an implied tag (for a toucan crossing, that makes total sense. Plus it doesn't make any difference routing. As an example, check out the Cycle Map layer, it's rendered green regardless). And I'd consider a central median to count as an island. You look one way crossing one half, and the other crossing the other, and get a break in the middle. Doesn't have to be there only for the purpose of the crossing imo; I'd be open to hearing your arguments against.

P.S. sorry for not replying sooner, didn't catch the email, and I'm sure you know the main website doesn't give comment notifications. Derp.

It just describes where you'd take the exit to reach the junction. If you think it's far away, there doesn't seem to be a convention as to whether you put the splitting point where the lane/s form, or where the markings indicate you should be in lane, or where the solid lines start. So you could change its position to your preference. It's not saying that the junction starts at that point. The convention I do know on its use is on exits, to tag the point you'd turn off, with highway=motorway_junction. I've seen this many times in the context of non-motorway dual carriageways, despite the name. The wiki also states that it's "applicable to other roads". That's a brain dump of what I know. I just add the names and keep it consistent between exits and junctions.

^^^Also circularised roundabout

You're not the first person to say that but there is such a thing as pavement mapping. In no way is it inaccurate if the pavement is actually there to map it and tag whether it's shared use or not. "Integral" is debatable, it's not unreasonable to argue that a kerb splits them up, in a much different way to a cycle lane. I've had some success getting changesets that do the same thing reverted by DWG. It can also lead to cycleway=track on roads with a pavement mapped alongside, because what would otherwise be mapped separately is just a tag that one might forget to check for, which ends up being legitimately inaccurate. Pavement mapping is a growing practice and you can now find entire towns (such as Newton-le-Willows) covered almost entirely by it.

OK after further investigation this was the fault of TomJeffs and his destructive mapping practices. Apologies, didn't mean to accuse you of deleting cycleways when you haven't here. You can see how I might have come to that conclusion with the history and vague changeset comments, but nonetheless, sorry mate.

Replacing cycleways with cycleway=track is just vandalism. It doesn't make the map any better or more accurate

Why do you still delete cycleways in favour of cycleway=track. It's not better in any way. And can you please use relevant changeset comments.

Should this road have access=permissive? It seems to have security and everything

This isn't exactly a pavement

Pavements I was not far from mapping. :/ stop deleting accurate mapping, for god's sake