Maybe that's a problem with the routing engines. It's a footbridge, and a very busy one for pedestrians. It's not a designated cycle track. It has bollards either end, low sides, as well as the dismount signs.

It also doesn't look like any of the wiki examples of a cycleway. Perhaps you can justify it to me without just shouting routing engine.

Because it's a footbridge, cyclists have to dismount, and walk over. Perhaps it should have a cycleway tag?

A permissive path is where the land owner has allowed access where no other rights exist - like in England. That's not the case here. We have a default legal right of access. So no, it is not appropriate either.

OSM is all about what is on the ground. You do not have to say what something's legal status is.

I would not add any access tag at all.

Ah, good! I feared you were adding it without thought.
There are a couple of issues I can see:
Some renderers wont show the track/paths.
Routing apps see the access=no and wont route along those ways.

Your other tags are fine, and it's useful info.

My thinking is the Land Reform Scotland act says we have a legal right, with various exclusions, of access. So as far as I can see those tracks and paths, do have a legal right of access. Permission doesn't have to be explicitly given to those particular paths or tracks.

Hi, Why are you marking this and all highway=track/path's you add as access=no ?

Hi, Why have you made the whole of the path from Glenmore over Meall a Bhuachaille a ford?

Absolutely. I saw someone has put in tower ridge (one of the classic climbs on the north face) and it'd be good to put in more. Certainly the Carn Mor Dearg arete should be marked as such, so I can see I have plenty of work to do here!

osm.wiki/Contribute_map_data