Oh yeah please feel welcome to keep up with your contributions.

In this case, even though bicycles are allowed here, it's still a footpath on the ground from a pedestrian perspective. We have this tag footway=sidewalk which says this footway is a sidewalk since it runs alongside the road, it's useful for some downstream data users.

So just because bicycles can also ride here, doesn't change the fact that it's a "sidewalk" footway. I see now you've added that footway=sidewalk tag back in thanks.

However at https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/530746983 you've added cycleway=sidepath, was that something you found documented somewhere? footway=sidewalk should be enough.

Yes but for a pedstrian it's also still a footpath, in OSM footway=sidewalk footway=*=sidewalk is used to map footways which are the sidewalk.

Do you know why way/246596679/history was deleted? It's best practice to try and retain history where possible? So generally it's always best to reuse existing ways rather than deleting them as we loose the history of the object when it's deleted.

osm.wiki/Relation:destination_sign doesn't indicate what a name tag on the destination_sign relation means, but the name you've used here seems more like a description than a proper name. Are you sure they need a name at all?

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/530746983 is still a pedestrian "sidewalk" so can you re-add that tag that you deleted back in?

What were you trying to change here? The tunnel was already mapped and it seemed your change moved the surface tags to the wrong place, so I've reverted this.

https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/76176736

+1 from me. You could also use opening_date=*

Ok I've added cycleway=crossing back into https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/724653636

Okay I've changed this back and made a few more updates from the latest Mapillary images.

Oh yeah the crossings you added were good, thanks for that, it was more the turn restrictions which I didn't understand the intent behind.

I've fixed these in changeset/76133836. there were some conflicts when I made the upload, looks like you already started deleting some.

Would be good to understand what you were trying to do here?

I've fixed a bunch of these in changeset/76133836

also not sure what relation/10207313 is

relation/10207312 again isn't needed since there is only a signposted only left turn which is already mapped.

relation/8515478 isn't needed as you already have the no right turn restriction https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/I1AgsYQT-AX6atqvTO0D3g

way/738103276
I think you meant "public_transport" not "public_tra" ;-)
same for the second one you've added.

relation/10207320
relation/10207319
^ what are these two for?

Yes anything signposted as dismount should be tagged as bicycle=dismount see osm.wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions and access=*#List_of_possible_values

I was once riding in the opposite direction so never saw the sign and got told off by an elderly man that I should dismount.

Most bicycle routers should still route you through bicycle=dismount, but it will probably apply a speed penalty. Either way we need to map this accurately to reflect what's on the ground.

Access tags like bicycle= and foot= are completely separate things than what the feature is highway=footway, highway=cycleway.

2. Also for https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/724653636 you removed footway=crossing but according to footway=crossing that tag is used to mark segments of path which are crossings, which this segment is, so it should have that tag.