You have been asked numerous times osm.org/user/Pete%20Owens/blocks to discuss your tagging preferences in the forum but have failed to do so.

In the most recent changeset discussion osm.org/changeset/180231230 you have been wrong about just about everything:

• you have claimed that highway=footway with no bicycle access tags implies that people may cycle on the footpath (it doesn’t) and also said that “Cycle access is undefined by default for footways” (it isn’t).

• you have said that this “is a problem with all cycle routers” (it isn’t).

• you have described https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/123396180/#quietest as an “illegal route” (it isn’t - it is suggesting that someone push their bike along the pavement next to a busy road).

When you are ready to engage with the rest of the UK OSM community please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of “[Ticket#2026032310000278] Pete Owens” and we will immediately revoke this block so that you can post in the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067/48 or in a new topic in the UK category.

Once you do that, I expect that discussion will include how people in the UK have historically processed bicycle tags on highway=footway; footway=sidewalk, what the implicit legal rules are and how best to store that in OSM (if it is necessary at all). I would also suggest reading https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/solving-the-dreaded-access-dismount-problem/134288 so that you can be familiar with some of the UK and international edge cases.

Best Regards,

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

Edit: Empty email received, but presumably intended to fulfil request above. Revoking block.