Follow on from osm.org/user_blocks/19125 , https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067 and prompted by another report to the DWG and recent comments at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=111135 .

Hello again Pete,

It’s pretty clear from changeset comments that your use of bicycle=no is out on what OSM calls “sidewalks” (footpaths by the side of the road, rather than public footpaths) is somewhat out of step with lots of other people.

My view is that it normally isn’t “wrong” (except in some obscure edge cases) but is entirely unnecessary - the Highway Code is very clear: “you must not cycle on the pavement”.

As an example, you’ve added bicycle=no to osm.org/way/1354910237/history (already tagged footway=sidewalk - can you please explain (in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 ) why it is appropriate tagging to do that here? It would also help to explain there why you removed the name=Manor Road tag too.

If it had been me mapping that, I’d have:

• not added bicycle=no because cycling is forbidden already due to footway=sidewalk
• after a survey, added the missing kerb cuts such as the likely one used to get around the back of the theatre
• perhaps moved name to street:name if I was worried that the pavement here wasn’t really “named” Manor Road.

It appears to me that many of the people with whom you are arguing in changeset discussions are entirely correct (for example, GinaroZ in osm.org/changeset/179461786 ). At best, you have failed to convince them of the merits of your approach.

Note this isn’t a “block” as such; it’s just a message that you have to read before continuing to edit, trying to get you to join in the discussion in the forum.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group.