I assumed that "highway=footway" shouldn't be used for unpaved trails. I'll look into the details and possibly fix it with another changeset.

It’s still different from the Kent St Cycleway, for it’s traversible along its entire length if accessing a driveway on the OPPOSSITE side of the road is required: https://images.app.goo.gl/XFuWgUxSdBfuHr6HA (image of the Queens Rd Cycleway). On the note of making crossings more accurate, I’ve already separated the ways where the cycle path raises to footpath level and separates from (i.e. becomes non-traversible to) the carriageway itself; there aren’t any special crossings along the way (intersections are the same as driveways).

For the reason, you could argue to map every lane on a highway as a separate way, for that it would be able to better accomodate lane-specific speed/weight restrictions.

It's more or less the same reason as to why we don't go around mapping every footpath adjacent to a road as a separate way.

This is a rough visualisation of the traversiblity of this cycle path: https://drive.google.com/file/d/109iBBASVMtTp3yjZrzALwocSZrMFcDEF/view?usp=sharing.

More information according to the Wiki (highway=cycleway): 'Cycling infrastructure that is an inherent part of a road - particularly "cycle lanes" which are a part of the road - should usually not be tagged as a separate cycleway, but by adding the cycleway=* tag to an existing highway=* instead.'

For example, it's only really beneficial to map a cycle path with a more pronounced separation as separate ways, such as this: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.124817646105555&lng=5.11207970324449&z=17&pKey=UTohV7pSi6yizWMpV3OaJg&focus=photo&x=0.47922357524004267&y=0.5347630088963569&zoom=0.

There isn’t a definite answer (according to the Wiki) to whether segregated cycle paths should be mapped as Cycleway=track or a separate way. In this case, the 2.4m bidirectional path is the same level as the main carriageway, separated by very narrow concrete blocks at short (~60cm) intervals. This means that the separation is easily traversible. Mapping them in this case as separate ways usually seriously trips-up various routing engines, which decreases guidance accuracy. For example, cyclists can easily leave the path to cross into a driveway on the other side of the street; the routing engine wouldn’t know that the path is easily traversible for its whole length if it were to be mapped separately.

@aharvey That's a good point, my intention was to refine the physical geometry of the roads leading into & out of the splitter islands. The official wiki doesn't specify the "correct" way of mapping splitter islands (traffic_calming=island are good for small ones however, those splitter islands of that roundabout are quite large so I split the ways.).

Hi aharvey, cycleway=lane doesn't eliminate the need for bicycle=designated, they're seperate tags. The routability of motorways can be determined by auto routers.

Hi. Motorway shoulders are legally different from cycle lanes and also have different safety levels. The openstreetmap wiki says: cycleway=lane: Used for shoulders that are navigable and legal to cycle on, where a high-speed road is legal but not useful infrastructure. Often a sign designates the road as such, e.g. "Motor Vehicles and Bicycles Only."

Hi aharvey. First, despite having bicycle markings, the M2 shoulders aren't legally cycle lanes (refer to the road rules for proper cycleway signage). Also, cycleway=* is usually used by auto routers and thus, cycleway=shoulder provides differentiation between motorway shoulders and cycle lanes on local streets. Hope it helps.