OK, that reasoning makes sense. Thank you for sharing it.

It’s not completely clear cut, because councils have historically labelled quite a few different standards of path as a cycle path (narrow ones, ones without repeater signs, ones with unsuitable surfaces) and I’ve had the misfortune of cycling along them. Given the signage on the opposite side, as you say, that does make it more likely that this path isn’t meant as a cycle route, despite linking to a toucan crossing. Perhaps they put the toucan crossing in for future proofing.

I’ve added a note to the way in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171142314 to point other mappers to this discussion in case they think it’s mistagged in future.