> hence the need for ways that are properly split at various junctions.

I _personally_ typically split ways at logical junctions (provided they don't result in split ways that are excessively short, frequent or otherwise make mapping and editing them more tedious and error-prone), and I actually find many of the changes generally helpful when they are splitting e.g. long footways, or sidewalks at blocks/intersections. However, I'm not aware of OSM documented community guideline or convention I'm aware of that states or implies that it is "proper" or even beneficial that ways be split at every intersection with another routable way—in fact, general de-facto mapping convention mostly only splits contiguous linear ways where there is a direct OSM-relevant reason to do so, such as a change in tags, relation membership or excessive length, and shorter continuous ways that don't have any apparent reason to be split are liable to be recombined by other mappers, especially things like splitting crossing ways and short footway segments that make editing tags more time-consuming and error-prone.

Unconditionally splitting every bicycle-navigable ways at every junction with another such way so your specific router can handle them may get a bit close to the core principle of OSM of [don't map for the router](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_router) in some mappers' view, given this is not widespread mapping practice, has the aforementioned potential drawbacks if done in all cases without a visible OSM benefit, and is not required for any other car, bike or pedestrian router I'm aware of. Also, at least to some mappers it may look a bit like [mechanical edits](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy) which OSM has some pretty strict rules on.

Therefore, to continue this discussion, mitigate any potential pushback and gather community feedback, I think it would be highly beneficial for you to make a post on [the OSM community forum](https://community.openstreetmap.org/) explaining the mass changes your team is making, the rationale behind them and welcoming feedback and suggestions on your approach. You've been quite responsive and friendly thus far and appear to have a non-trivial history as a mapper, so I suspect it would be well received and beneficial to all involved if you initiated it. If not, I'd be happy to make a post myself sharing my perspective as a neutral mapper, highlighting the benefits I see while also surfacing some potential concerns others might have (to which you'd be most welcome to reply to share your perspective).