That discussion appears to be between a single scofflaw cyclist who thinks cyclists ought to be allowed to ride on pavements and a shedload of other posters pointing out how he is wrong. UK traffic law is clear and unambiguous that cycling on pavements is illegal. OSM has to represent the world as it is - not how TomJeffs thinks it ought to be.

Some suggest that the tagging is correct, but unnecessary; that routers ought to know (unfortunately they don't). No one other than TomJeffs suggested that there is anything wrong with bicycle=no.

The discussion then moves on to footpaths away from roads where the situation is more ambiguous and needs to be decided on a case by case basis. But, this particular case is a bog standard pavement on which cycling is illegal.

I have not reverted anything - just tagged cycle access on pavements consistent with UK traffic law.

If you approach northbound (and at every crossing) then what you see is a large upside down cycle symbol and double dashed line give way marking across the whole width of the cycleway. If it was a two-way route then what you would see would be the above just on the right hand side and a right way up cycle symbol on the left.

Pedestrians need the blue segregation signage to show where they can expect to encounter cyclists (These are used incorrectly on the section to the south where there is no segregation.)

And, in the case of that particular stretch of cycleway the markings are clearly indicating one way use. The cycleway forks off the carriageway - which would be dangerous in the opposite direction. The cycle symbols face in one direction, the give way markings all apply in that direction.

Further south it degenerates into an unsegregated shared use pavement. I guess it is still intended for one way use and it would be difficult to access the far end from the other direction, but there is no signage to make that explicit.

UK traffic law

That's what the sign says - or did 2 years ago when I surveyed it.

The law is the only relevant issue in determining whether cycling is permitted here.
Cycling is prohibited so cycling=no is correct.

Are you sure about the 1mph speed limit on the slip road from Chadderton Way leading to the Audi dealer?

Of course once you have mapped a separate pavement then cycle access is totally uncontroversial from the perspective of law abiding citizens.

THE LAW - Highway Code Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

OSM - cycling=no
Indicates that riding bicycle is not allowed.

The best way to map pavements is as to use sidewalk tags on the highway - In the real world pedestrians can cross the road anywhere the like rather than just at the fictional "crossings" that mappers have to include to make the pavement reachable at all.

Richard: The issue here is not footpaths or public rights of way where a landowner may or may not permit cycling, but pavements where cycling is prohibited by law.

You claim that cycle routers will not send cyclists along footways by choice - but then go on to describe situations where cycle routers choose to do exactly that.

OSM must reflect the world as it is not how you wish it was.

The law is clear that cycling on pavements is prohibited; there is no exception for disabled people or children.

And when folk rely on personal abuse to make a point it is a sure sign that their argument is without merit.

And within a matter of hours TomJeffs has resumed his vandalism of my edits:
changeset/175476817

Can you please stop your repeated vandalism.

Cycling on the pavement is ILLEGAL in the UK.