Yeah thanks I noticed that on some other edits I made, it defaults sometimes to 20kph. I use the cyclosm layer to spot missing 20mph zones. There are loads missing.

I think I made a mistake, thanks for highlighting it. I'm unable to correct it for a few days.

Yeah I considered it, but it was so wildly inaccurate it would have taken me 3 times as long to reposition it than it did to simply redraw it.

I wouldn't hold my breath, things don't seem to work quickly. I've asked recently if there could be more inclusive language used around cycling (ie get rid of the bicycle term as disabled people often use 3-4 wheeled machines) and my request was treated with a complete lack of understanding. And I have had disagreements with people who think cycleways as part of the highway should be drawn separately. This place can be a bit like Wikipedia for edit wars which is why I tend to stick now to areas other people haven't edited.

Ok thanks, riding arena (I just searched for horses) is great. Sorry I snapped, sometimes the lack of body language can be a real barrier.

honestly it isn't a great concern for me, I'm just drawing areas that are currently blank on the map. I type horse into the field and it's the first thing that comes up. I'll not draw them in future, someone else can do it. Thanks for letting me know.

I don't know about the leisure part of it, but it and all the others I've tagged look very much like small arenas were horses are ridden/exercised. They're pretty obvious.

ok thanks, I was there yesterday and it appeared open. Since it links several walking and cycling routes I'll change things a little.

The service road by the railway, near Coventry Arena - is it closed for maintenance, to all, or is it just closed to general traffic?

I wanted to check before marking it as "permissive" for motoring and permissive for walking/cycling etc.

It isn't a separate cycleway, it's a shared footway, which is part of the highway.

If you haven't been along the A555 recently then it's no surprise you don't understand the current layout, which is radically different than before.

Nothing you have said will change my opinion and I will continue as I have before.

I will continue to do it because I don't agree with anything you have said. The cycleway along the A555 is an integral part of the highway and thus should be tagged as such. That is why the parts of it that are not part of the highway are drawn as a separate route.

You may wish to read this

https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement

I use this route very regularly. It is lunacy to route cyclists on the road here - they will die.

I don't agree. The "cycleways" along Marsland Road are just very old and outdated shared footways. They are an integral part of the highway - they aren't physically separate highways in their own right. Thus, it's inaccurate to draw them as such.

Thanks for the alert, I didn't see that - I changed it because it's now a much less significant road in the transport network (for driving). I've changed it back.

Yes that's odd, presumably it was joined to the towpath on a previous edit and then separated. I'd just remove it if I were you.

ok so I checked and oneway:bicycle=no allows routing of cyclists along oneway roads tagged with cycleway=track. Unfortunately I missed two segments at a junction, but if you play with the route planner hopefully you can see that apart from the A523 section I missed, it works fine.

oneway:bicycle=no might work. I shall try that and check back in a week or so once things have updated.

Furthermore, creating separate cycleways causes rendering issues on roads where those cycleways are preceded or followed by on-road cycle lanes, which editors usually ignore.

Is there perhaps a tag for the cycleway that would let those routing websites see it as bidirectional?

I think there are merits to cycleway tags and separate cycleways. I tend to use the former as they more closely follow the road and don't require dozens of separate connections. And the cycleway along the A555 is a shared footway, and is therefore a part of the highway - not separated. I only use separate cycleways when they are physically disconnected from the highway.

It isn't currently shown on Stockport's definitive map which suggests it isn't a bridle path - https://www.stockport.gov.uk/stockport-public-rights-of-way/prow-map

The map may be out of date though, I don't know the area well enough to look for any definitive map modification orders.

I would still tag it as a walking and cycling path, and add horse access. Bridleways have a specific legal definition which this route doesn't yet appear to have.