> For your reference, here are links to relevant information from the OSM wiki:
> osm.wiki/Key:crossing:continuous#:~:text=When%20the%20road%20that%20crosses%20a%20continuous%20sidewalk%20is%20a%20minor%20service%20road%2C%20such%20as%20a%20driveway%20or%20a%20car%20park%20entrance%2C%20there%20is%20community%20consensus%20that%20this%20is%20not%20worth%20tagging%20explicitly%3B%20instead%20the%20node%20should%20simply%20be%20left%20without%20any%20tags
> osm.wiki/Talk:Key:crossing:continuous
> I hope this clarifies why I chose not to include these. 

No?  Those are pages referring to continuous crossings, which these aren't.

Imagine I was walking from one of the houses on the east side of the street here to the tram stop.  Would I follow this route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=53.386936%2C-2.256103%3B53.386806%2C-2.255834 ?  I'm not familiar with Wythenshawe, but almost certainly not - I'd just cross the road.
What if I was pushing a wheelchair (something I spent about 5 years doing, so do have experience of)?  Again, almost certainly not.  If there's a high kerb on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746745866/history I'd have to use the "official" crossing at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746745864/history , if there isn't I would again "just cross the road", using the lowered kerb in front of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/726134898/history .

I don't believe that I can effectively map the sidewalks here as separate sidewalks _without actually going there_, and I don't believe that you can, either.  If the imagery was clearer and everything was more perpendicular and just _larger_, then maybe it might be possible.  I've previously suggested https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.382552/-121.925734 on the forum as the sort of place where you absolutely could have a go at mapping things remotely, but I don't think this bit of Wythenshawe is.