Indeed. The fact remains that the only function of that sort of tactile paving is to give a warning to visually impaired pedestrians. For cycling to be legal on the footway you need blue signs.

Tactile paving is so often deployed incorrectly, I'm not sure how much use it is for the visually impaired, but it has no significance for cyclists.

not on the pavement. you cant. The only signed cycleways are N-S to connect Burtonwood Road. There is tactile paving on the pavement to warn visually impaired people that they are approaching the crossing

You were obviously somewhere else. That always has been and still is the main way in and out of the forge car park.

If a way does not state whether cycling is allowed or not then it is the underlying data that is ambiguous.

However, whether or not you think cycle routing algorithms ought to be able understand that normally riding on the pavement is illegal in the UK, the fact remains that those algorithms exist and are widely used. While I have no control over cycle routing algorithms I can fix the illegal routing problems by the correct the tagging of pavements.

Fortunately, mapping of pavements as separate ways is rare so the confusion does not often arise. It would be helpful if the OSM default was changed to Bicycle=no (and for trunk roads to bicycle=yes)

Unfortunately the default tag is "Bicycle=Not Specified" (exactly the same as for trunk roads where cycling is allowed). This causes problems for cycle routing algorithms which tend to include any ways where cycling in not explicitly forbidden and often actively prefer off-road options. For example this illegal route recommended by cyclosm:
http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=19/51.51009/-0.13457/standard&lonlats=-0.134282,51.510237;-0.133601,51.510078&profile=safety.

The tag Bicycles=no is used to express that cycling is not allowed - as is the case on footways in under UK law. Not that possession of a bicycle is prohibited.

Once a cyclist dismounts they become a pedestrian thus access is specified by Foot=*. In the same way, if they strap the bike to the back of a car they can then use motorways.

The summary is more clearly worded:
"A rail, typically metal, designed to keep vehicles within their roadway and prevent dangerous collisions. When mapping, the arrow side of the line points away from the road."

I mapped the Warrington Cycle Network a long while ago and continue to maintain it. This is getting more difficult as people keep breaking it: duplicating sections that are already mapped as tags, deleting sections creating daps in the network and adding cycleways that do not exist on the ground.

Actually it is just a stretch of Burtonwood Road from which motors have been prohibited. So it used to be simply a road with the tag Motor Vehicle = no. Someone changed this to a pedestrian street which isn't quite right.

Nice that the awful barriers have gone - though a bit rich for the council to claim credit for removing obstructions that they installed in the first place and left in place for ten years!

I just corrected the cycle access tag to yes when I noticed the road had disappeared from the cycle map along with the path leading to Burtonwood Road.

According to Sustranns:

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-a-route-on-the-national-cycle-network/route-562/

"Route 562 of the National Cycle Network is in development. Once completed it will connect Southport with Aston via Burscough, Wigan, St Helens, Widnes and Runcorn."

Falsernet - Don't add duplicate non-existent ways when a cycleway has ALREADY BEEN MAPPED.

Don't delete existing roads and then complain when they are restored.

Don't merge sections of road with different tagging - taking out a section of the national cycle network in the process,

Don't add ways where cycling is prohibited, without tagging them as such. From a UK perspective it would be useful if OSM set bicycle=no by default pavements in the same way as it does for motorways, but it doesn't. Fortunately this isn't a big problem because nobody maps pavements separately.

The presence of "sidewalks" (or pavements as we tend to call them in the UK) is very rarely tagged since they are a near universal feature of streets - only the absence in note worthy. However the best way to represent them is by tagging the highway with footway=yes/no unless they follow separate paths. Otherwise, pedestrian routes become excessively convoluted whenever this involves crossing a road. Certainly any separately mapped pavement needs to be explicitly tagged bicycle=no, otherwise they will be picked up by cycle routing applications.

I deleted it because it is duplicate mapping. The cycleway (actually a shared use pavement) was already mapped by tagging the highway of which it is part. There is no separate path and never has been.

Re: You don't mind this part of the footway to exist as a separate way:
way/964452554

A particularly absurd example - since there are pavements on both sides of the road, yet only one side is mapped explicitly. My main concern is the accuracy of routing for cyclists, so I have corrected it to indicate that cycling on pavements is illegal.

But in this case there IS NO SEPARATE WAY. So mapping a separate way is both inaccurate and adds clutter.

Viritually every street in the country has pavements - and in virtually every case these are not explicitly mapped (either by a tag or as a separate way). This is why it is generally those roads without pavements where the absence is noted with the tag sidewalk=no (eg. Birchwood Way). Unless you are proposing to ststematically map all the pavements alongside every street in Warrington then isolated sections of such mapping are misleading since they imply a physically separate route. It also makes routing excessively complicated.

I am simply restoring accuracy. There is no _separate_ path or cycleway at this point - just that cyclists are permitted to use the pavement which is indicated by tagging the highway. If you start to map pavements as separate ways that is going to create a huge amount of clutter since virtually all streets have pavements on either side - the way to deal with that is to tag the absence of footways on the few roads without them

The cycleway isn't mapped seperatel;y, but as a tag on the streets - so cannot be separated from the crossings. Though it looks as if someone has subsequently duplicated them.

This is not the case.

Maybe you saw it during temporary road works. The exit to Park Boulevard is one way (Southwards) only. The only entrance is from Wilderspool Causway.

Actally there are alternative on-street and off-street routes for this section.
See the Warrington BC cycle map:
https://www.warrington.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/Warrington%20Cycle%20Map%202020.pdf