Yes, that's how sentences work, you can say one thing and then qualify it with another. "It is sunny today but there will be rain around 2pm."

Facetiousness aside, a typical case is https://cycle.travel/map?from=&to=&fromLL=51.500175,-0.241000&toLL=51.498920,-0.242396 where the sane route is pushing along a short stretch of highway=footway to avoid a 400m detour. c.t uses a pedestrian symbol in this case to indicate that the user should push (and in the app will give distinct turn-by-turn directions etc.).

Contrast with https://cycle.travel/map?from=&to=&fromLL=51.748672,-1.256575&toLL=51.751087,-1.248749, where you can't even drag the route onto the path through Christ Church Meadows, because pushing a bike is forbidden there.

This is why it is important to differentiate between "you can push a bicycle here" (bicycle=dismount) and "you cannot push a bicycle here" (bicycle=no).

Yep, hence "absent permission of the landowner". A public footpath doesn't confer a right of way for cycling or pushing a bike. But a landowner is entirely within their rights to grant permissive usage, whether explicitly or simply through tolerance. We have a section of NCN near us which is officially a public footpath, for example, but the landowner has given permission.

Hello from a cycle router author.

No cycle router will send cyclists along highway=footway by choice, with or without access tag. Some may, however, potentially incorporate a highway=footway into a route, with a clear direction to get off and push, if it saves a long or dangerous diversion otherwise.

bicycle=no is, however, not likely to be the right tag on (for example) way/206286744. If you want to add an access tag, then the least ambiguous one would be bicycle=dismount. bicycle=no is best used for the situation where bicycles are forbidden _whether pushed or ridden_. This is the default situation on public footpaths (absent permission of the landowner, because a bicycle is not a "usual accompaniment"), as well as many permissive footpaths such as through the grounds of Oxbridge colleges.

Hi - could you say why you removed the note tags from way/319586047 in this changeset?

Hi - the long-standing convention in OSM, dating back to 2011, is that the National Byway is network=rcn. This is due to its Regional Route-like character; the fact it's not truly a national network but just covers some regions of the UK; and for differentiation from the (Sustrans/WWCT) National Cycle Network. I've retagged the superroute relation accordingly.

(writing as someone who has a spare National Byway sign above their desk ;) )

Indeed - "my" route (NCN 442, which I designed and largely implemented) has two missing sections which will be fixed one day...

NCN 43 is intended to go via roughly Tirabad and Trecastle to join the two sections, I think. But I'd be pleasantly surprised if that happens any time in the next 10 years!

Great - thank you for the survey! I think mapping it as a separate link route is fine for now.

I'm 99% sure that it's a "future route" rather than a "meant to be removed route" though. Sustrans' direction of travel is very much towards traffic-free paths rather than on-road routes, and this is a (really quite good) traffic-free path whereas the on-road route is pretty mediocre in places - e.g. the A4047 section. Improving NCN 46 seems to have been a theme throughout the Heads of the Valleys road scheme - e.g west of Cefn Coed where there had been a gap in the route for ages.

If you take a look at the Sustrans planned works map (https://www.sustrans.org.uk/national-cycle-network/our-plans-to-improve-the-national-cycle-network/) then the northerly route is shown as "New Route Section - Traffic free" and has advanced to "Stage 3 - Detailed Planning" (coloured in purple).

The garage exit is weird though and nor is it clear how the route will link to the Clydach Valley path - I wonder if there might end up being a signalised crossing across King Street by the Bridgend Inn.

Excellent, will be interested to see what you find out. Legalities aside I wouldn't trust OS maps on the NCN - OSM is famously more accurate than Sustrans' own data as to where the NCN is actually signposted ;)

That's weird - yes, certainly there was signage at that roundabout and continuing east, but also further along: I took a couple of photos of the signage east of Garnlydan. https://imgur.com/a/czocdcI

I do remember it being missing on the path through the residential area at Rassau and on the entrance to the garage near the Brynmawr bridges/roundabout.

I don't think it's a leftover sign - quite the opposite: this is the (expensive!) new route built as part of the A465 works which hasn't been fully signed yet!