You've removed foot=designated even though it's a PROW
You've added bicycle=dismount even though there are no signs
You've added horse=no even though it's a towpath!
You've removed all cycling tags even though it's an NCN route way/544323127

For the above reasons I will be reverting your edit

Not only are your edits erroneous, they're lackadaisically consistent (only changing the occasional way) & proves you're mapper who contributes no improvements to the OSM database. Please refrain from editing in such a manner, especially in this area.

>Neither use is dominant.

The tagging, as was, implied no dominance for either user.

It's location is irrelevant. it's still classed as a shared use cycleway.

if the vast majority of a changeset is incorrect (as in this case - The K&A towpath relation shouldn't be extended) then a changeset revert is required.

>To tag them 'cycleway' seems to not only an appropriation and, to an international reader, saying do not go here.
>But to rely on UK customary use is not helpful.

I think you're misunderstanding 'cycleway' which can be used to map shared ways

Having a cycle route relation attached to a way doesn't not make that way accessible to bike riders. It requires cycle specific tags on the actual ways.

Changing cycleway to path but not adding tags allowing cycling prevents accessibility to bikes.
way/129444879

Deleting foot=* on ways where walking is designated is wrong
way/667952161/history

"Kennet and Avon Canal towpath" is not the name of the path. There is a route relation titled "Kennet and Avon Canal towpath"

>But where the response is simply "that (cycleway) is just how we do it in the UK, then no thank you.

This is a tad hypocritical as you're clearly assuming it should be to suit the perspective of "an international reader," & "where I live"

For the above reasons I believe this, & other changesets of Alwyns has reduced the quality of the database & should be reverted

Are you sure this access was blocked up?
way/104932797

Hi
What does ... (route) represent?

kissing gates, by default, are unsuitable for bike riding.

OSMR should be aware of any cycling relations & prioritize accordingly.

So you're add both bicycle yes & no tags?!
OSMR doesn't sound like a capable piece of software
As OSM is geospatially aware, OSMR & all 3rd party software should be able to adapt to specific countries

This is clearly a problem within the router, not OSM. Please contact OSMR to resolve this limiting feature, instead of adding unnecessary tags.

Hi
What router do you believe requires the bicycle=yes tag?

Any chance you can sort out this internal building mess. You've created at least three entities, none of which align.

Hi
Why have you deleted all the shops at Craddocks Ave?
Why do your selective replacement shops correspond exactly to those listed on Google Maps? (you can't copy GM's data)
Why have you removed car park polygons ?

Hi
These Qs apply to many of your changeset edits:
Why have you deleted the more detailed, accurate polygon platforms only to replace them with single ways?
Why have you deleted a train station building & a landuse=railway area?
Why have you duplicated railway=station tags
Why have you deleted valid railway=station nodes?
Why have you added building=8 tags to areas which clearly aren't buildings?

Hi
Labels of villages are often placed externally so they don't block detailed information.

Hi
Did you mean this to be commercial? Better a highway=service, area=yes?
If the buildings are offices a 'commercial' area should be drawn to the extent of the whole grounds (& realign the residential area)

Hi
There was no misunderstanding. I was asking why you deleted the valid tag 'footway'. It is being encouraged to not use 'path' as it's usage is inconsistent & confusing (as borne out by its wiki page. All attributes of a path described on that page should be included as sub-tags to 'footway'). The major renderings make no distinction between them.

Why have you removed 'cycleway' from ways that are designated bicycle routes?

Hi
is there a reason you've removed the footway tag?
way/191261916

Hi
You've removed a couple of sections from NCN 4. Could you revise please:
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=1318930

You've also removed major parts of EV1:
relation/2763769
Please restore.

This, & other iD 'validations' are very worrying
The correct tagging for crossing with painted white stripes is:
highway=crossing
crossing=uncontrolled (if it hasn't any vehicle restricting lights)
crossing_ref=zebra

I note this was performed in around 30 seconds. I don't use iD. Is it possible to collect data together for a mass edit similar to how it can be done in JOSM?

Please stop ignoring the solutions you've been provided with.