Thanks for your description. What source, though have you used to name these footpaths? I understand that historical streets by these names used to exist along similar routes, but since they were demolished, what source is there for their names being transfered to the foothpaths? I'm not aware that they're even used as local names within Bristol. The same goes for Mary-le-port St.; that it is a footpath (most definitely not a street) which follows the route of a demolished road, and will be reinstated as a fully connected route once the development is complete, but that isn't the current status.
For Back Bridge St, that's clear it's an adopted highway by that name, but what evidence is there that the cycle & footpath is still referred to as Back Bridge St?

Hi, where are these paths still named? I can't see any evidence for them having the names of the old roads, and indeed don't even exist as footpaths anymore but just parts of a pedestrian area.

What evidence is there of this way: way/1538505135/history/1 being the City of London? There is no signage on it currently

Ah, speedy work, nice!

That wasn't a change made in this changeset (check the way history) Would need to revert your change and survey in person to check.

Hi, yes that would probably be a mistake, but I can't spot the section you're referring to. Could you link to it?

Would be worth removing the osm.wiki/Tag:'note=' now that you've made the construction update. Also where did the osm.wiki/Tag:'addr:street=' come from? The address should probably read no=1, street=Friary, postcode=*, and nothing else. I think my original addition of using parentstreet= was incorrect

Hi, where did you get the name from?

Ah, grand. Sounds like a little more investigation might be needed then. I'll have a look next time I'm in the area.

The Park is mapped as a public footpath. Is this gate really locked?

Hi, really nice to see another taking an interest in recording the condition of our rivers and streams.
Doing a fair bit around Bristol myself I'm aware of how much has been culverted, making it tricky to map into OSM. I know, from access to other maps incompatible with the ODbL, that the culverted streams have been significantly altered, to the extent that they're de facto surface drains and this sadly applies to the Cranbrook.
Do you have any other evidence that says otherwise? I fear, if not, that using 150yr old maps within an urban environment isn't particularly useful, and at worst doesn't meet OSM's 'Good Practice' (see pt.2 of osm.wiki/Good_practice#Editing_Standards).
Do you have another place where you can copy this (and the other related) changesets to still be of value to your project?

Hi, welcome to mapping the cycleways in Bristol if you're new to it - nice to have more people interested! Keep in mind though, that, unless it's expressly signed, pedestrians are legally permitted to use cycleways in the UK, so the foot=no tag should be removed and the information that it's a cycle track (per legislation) is shown by the segregated=yes tag which should be added here.
On a personal preference note, I'd also not add the way at all until the route was complete, or at least use highway=construction until that point

Hi, what's your evidence for this change? Are you officially-affiliated with the WECA?

Thanks for understanding - you're right about Back Bridge St too. I had thought it was still listed on OSOpenRoads, like Bridge St is, but it's not. I'll leave Bridge St though, that's signed on the ground (or was before the construction started), and listed on OSOpenRoads.
Sorry for jumping in like this

Ah, of course. I would have expected this stretch to retain the history after the split as it's more prominent.
I was aware of some street renaming nearby by the same user which we had chat about and ended up reverting. I hadn't spotted that the same was done here. Only Back Bridge St remains as a named highway so I'm tempted to revert it on the basis of it being inaccurate.
I'd say the same of Cherry Ave as it's not a name which has been adopted by the local community yet, but would be quite suitable on a umap or equivalent.

Hi, did you create Cherry Ave from scratch? I can't quite believe that it wasn't already mapped but your changeset suggests that was the case.
Also, where did you find its name? I wasn't aware that it, or any of the paths in Castle Park, was still called by their old road names apart from possibly St Mary Le Port

Brill, thanks. I was worried that you might have been using Google as a source, but I've since found that ESRI has got some up-to-date imagery too so I'll crack on with theirs.
I had a wander along on the weekend and noticed the stream is fully diverted into the new ponds and scrapes, should you wish to change the route of the stream way to run through the new course

Hi, where did you get the information to map the set of new wetland ponds here?:
way/1486002388

Definitely agree that it's good to promote the use of the handful of cycle lanes which are appearing around town by preferring separate ways. Gonna need to keep on top of the links between the highway and the cycleway as there are loads more than the few which you've added 'for the router'.
As for shared paths, I'm not familiar with the linetype you're referring to. Which app / platform is that used in?
On this changeset, I wondered why you chose to change this way: way/1091056203 from a footway to cycleway?

Hi Andy, nice to have another interested in the cycle paths around Bristol. Just wanted to highlight a few things to consider when mapping a cycleway separately, using this as an example;
- The original highway will need its tags updating also (e.g cycleway:right=track > cycleway:right=separate)
- You'll need to consider the routing implications, ie, here the separating kerb has gaps regularly along its length which allows cyclists to join / leave at regular points, making it possible to turn into / from the adjoining roads to the north. By mapping the cycleway separately you lose this information and would have to map individual cycleway=link ways at every gap in the kerb to get it back.
- Changing footway=sidewalk ways to highway=cycleway for non-segregated pavements also, in my view, loses important information about the quality of design of cycleway, and the relationship with the neighbouring road way tagged with sidewalk:*side=separate.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts before I get involved in making any edits. When, out of interest, did you survey this area and the Whitehouse Lane cycle path?