I spent nearly three hours reading threads like https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/5877 and https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/5878 and https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/3785 and https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2644 and https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/discussions/4645 and now the thread you linked.

My conclusions are:

1. NL wants to be different and have all data consumers (routing software, rendering software, and any other software) adjust to the semantic difference of "there is a cycleway with a sidewalk here" (highway=cycleway + sidewalk tag) and "there is a cycleway and a sidewalk here" (foot and cycleway access tags + segregated=yes)

2. In my changeset, only information was added and no damage was done

(Specifically looking the histories of the three ways you edited, namely https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/380068682, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/380068676, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1171494325, :surface=paving_stones was added and the existing surface=paving_stones was left untouched by the editor)

3. From what I can see, StreetComplete is aware of its impact and is careful to follow established tagging schemes as well as local differences, such as in https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/5877#issuecomment-2336603290

4. You removed check_date:surface for no apparent reason; I don't see it coming up as an issue in any of the discussions

Going around to revert changes and campaign against the editor after your proposals were rejected (after extensive discussion), when the editor adds/disambiguates information, seems counterproductive

The only qualm I could see with the editor's behavior is that it sets surface to the more generic 'paved' when the sidewalk and cycleway have different paved surfaces. That's not what happened here, though