For a deaf pedestrian, a blind pedestrian, a mobility impaired pedestrian, an elderly pedestrian, a special needs pedestrian or a child pedestrian, walking distance does not trump safety.  A pedestrian network separate from cyclist, vehicular or horse networks offers the best potential for safety and it is when avoidance of conflict, safety is perceived to be paramount rather than routing then use of such a network by all will grow.  Pedestrian facilities are not perfect, but fortunately there is broad political and popular support to commit multi-annual funding to enhance the development of a separate and safer pedestrian network. A large component of this is the retrofitting in urban and suburban areas of dished kerbs and pedestrian cross-overs at junctions.  This is a reflection of how in the past pedestrian need and safety was not properly considered and how this is now rapidly changing.  I map these retrofitted crossovers. It’s unfortunate that many of the retrofitted crossovers are not signed or marked to highlight the separate pedestrian network being upgraded.  Imagine if railway crossing of roads were not signed or marked. It is of note that in a few but growing number of instances where the pedestrian only space is inadequate and conflicts with the road space, the road space is reduced or given over exclusively to pedestrians only. It is also of note that the https://osmstats.neis-one.org website does not appear to flag any significant number of quality assurance issues regarding how I map and tag footpaths.  I have not found any OSM orthodoxy on the only way to map and tag footpaths, so I suggest we agree to differ on this.