keithonearth (2020-08-14 18:04:21+00:00): There seem to be a few misconceptions involved in your understanding of OSM. 

There are no "Overloards". Most decisions are made collaboratively. The only exception is when the question of vandalism comes up, and an editor does not respect other editors opionins. Then the Data Working Group becomes involved. If the DWG determines something is vandalism, they have the power to ban a user, but usually do their best to come to an agreement w/o taking that step.

You are mistaken about the TCT being incorrectly mapped as a NCN. It was correct. As I've said before, just because the entire route isn't designed for cyclists does not exclude the sections from a NCN tag here on OSM. The correct approach is to have the parts that are designated for bikes in a NCN relation, and the parts that are designated for foot as NWN. Your edits have damaged the route, removing many parts that should be included in the cycle relation, but still including many sections that are `foot=no` in what is now a tagged as a walking route.

You have done this while criticizing the planning of the route, and promoting an informal alternative. It looks a bit like vandalism, but I'll assume it was done out of ignorance.

I will be changing the tag back to NCN, and trying to fix the relation, by removing the foot only sections, and adding back the bicycle only sections.

OSM is for collaboratively mapping reality, not for collaboratively conceiving new routes, or promoting them. 

I've put a question on help.osm.org, regarding the requirements for a proposed route, here: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/76051/

As you can see, I'm not the only one who has issues with your approach, and I have been advised to delete your route relations. Feel free to comment there, but it does not look like you meet the requirements to keep these relations in OSM. I hope you can understand that it would be inappropriate for *anyone* to be be able to add any route that they just think is a good idea. 

A reasonable rule of thumb is whether the group proposing the route has the legal and logistical capability to signpost the route. You have dismissed the possibility of signposting the route, and called it vandalism. As such I do not think you have the legal capability to signpost the route.

OSM not Strava for adding "segments", or RideWithGPS for sharing your favourite bike tour. Those sites exist, and you are welcome to use them.

Another option would be to display your routes using uMap: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ for example, something like this: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/traversee-des-pyrenees_335454#10/42.8755/-0.9998 would look good.

You would then be able to have control over the route, have it displayed more clearly, and accept changes to the route via facebook, or whatever other social networking sites you favour, without editors like me questioning your methods.

It wouldn't be too much work to get a site like https://bikepacking.com set up, using uMap and wordpress or something similar. You could have photos, route descriptions, and comments. 

Or you could keep it very simple, and link to a demo uMap from your facebook group page.

You are always welcome to add objectively existing bicycle (or other) infrastructure here, which will be very useful for cyclists, but promoting your casually defined routes is inappropriate.