Apirnus (2023-09-29 17:14:48+00:00): I see your point now. However, right of way does not mean only that everyone should yield to you. It also means you have legal way to use (traverse) for example a way without restrictions (e.g. cyclers on combined pedestrian-cycling path or cyclers on vehicle path) and as I explained priorly, cycler has only very limited legal right of way on the crossings (crossing the crossing without restrictions), namely when vehicle will turn left-right and cycler goes straight or when on regulated crossing traffic light blocks any traffic around the crossing in order to let pedestrians and cyclers to cross the crossing, that's when cycler can legally cross the crossing without dismounting. These are the moments when you can easily put "yes" tag no matter what is the painted zebra looking like on the road.

Exempt from key:access wiki: "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."

The right of way on the regulated crossing for cyclers is a legal permission to cross without dismounting and must vehicles yield to cyclers. For unregulated crossing usually dismount but not always. For unregulated crossing it depends on the crossing itself. In this case road markings aka zebra do not tell such thing besides telling only that its the crossing or where on the crossing the pedestrians and cyclers should position themselves. Yes, cycler can legally cross such place but cycler does not get right of way legally in such case in which case you cant tag such crossing with "yes" tag only because it has zebra on it since second exempt clearly defines what is "yes" tag.

What you propose is not exactly what is on the ground and describes typical use, not how its legally used.

Second exempt from wiki: "Value - yes; Description - The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."

In the second exempt the legally-enshrined right of access on the crossing for the cycler in current legal ruling means cycler can cross the crossing without dismounting. Without dismounting the cycler either gains or loses the right of way against the vehicles in our legal ruling depending on the crossing itself. If we ignore legal ruling or start ignoring exceptions, its not "ground truth" anymore as is written in the first exempt. And the most basic legal side of the cycling on crossings without exceptions are those two occasions when cyclers have real legal right of way.

We are talking afterall in the context of how crossing is accessed legally, not how it is connected to the paths surrounding the crossing. You can put "yes" for cyclers on regulated crossing between two parallel running combined cycling-pedestrian paths because cyclers are legally allowed to cross in such place and since its regulated crossing, cycler has the right of way. But on the combined cycling-pedestrian path it could be legal access as a right of way (bicycle=yes, 100% cycling road) or it could be designated because it has been marked by traffic sign such way, making the path distinguishable from lets say simple footpath or sidewalk (combined cycling-pedestrian footpath/cycle path).