changed to just bicycle_road=yes which seems more correct for the NA context

The signs appear to be new, or perhaps were vandalized (removed) when I was there last. I'll change the tag for the bridge to cyclists dismount. For the trails would you agree bicycle=yes is acceptable as there are no signs prohibiting cycling.

This does exist, it's paved and presumably will eventually connect to Carroll st.

Hey there. No big deal but FYI the Victoria AAA bike routes are in two relationships routes due to a previous disagreement with another editor on here who didn't want any of routes named so as a compromise we did both named routes and a generic local route.

You can add tags without removing relationships. The map looks so much worse now. This is for cyclists not drivers having cycling infrastructure mapped well doesn't get in the way or anything please undo what you did.

The map after your edits is worse for anyone trying to find a safe way to cycle in the city and I think that should be the primary goal here. Give useful names and highlight good 'routes' that are safe and comfortable to ride on. You undid a lot of good work, please consider reverting it back to the way it was a few days ago.

The city continues to publish maps with these names, as I posted above. I can't speak for all the routes but many are signed with 'Bike Route' signs that point along the route and help with way-finding in addition to way finding sharrows (and street name signs obviously). Your edits seems anti-cyclist by making it harder to find good routes for no good reason.

I do not understand this change. The Victoria AAA network is mapped and named colloquial by users and the city as per the City of Victoria's AAA map. https://www.victoria.ca/media/file/aaa-network-map your edits have made it harder to use the maps and removed useful names.

I would rather see the tag reserved for places closed or mostly closed to cars like how government is now as opposed to being used for quiet residential streets.

I will check next time I am in the area. But I don't think a sign alone is enough to meet the definition of a living street. On street view it looks like a regular residential street, no special infrastructure like diverts, speed bumps etc. OSM says "A general feature of this type of road is, that the legislation either grants pedestrians the right of way over or at equal rights to other road users."