I think that’s probably right, or perhaps the sign predates the opening of the wooden bridge which is quite new - previously there was no way to cross the estuary here.As the bridge does allow cyclists subject to giving priority to pedestrians, it would make no sense to prohibit cyclists from approaching from one side (there is no such sign from the other direction).
But it’s true this is probably getting a bit off topic, maybe better to focus on the 1st two photos. What I was really getting at was: this bridge and path have no signs directly designating it for anybody. Does that mean that if “shared use paths” were given their own tag, it wouldn’t qualify?
This again makes me wonder, where do proposals to split “shared use paths” from trails leave “unspecified use” paths? If shared use is interpreted strictly as “paths with a blue circular sign with pedestrians and bicycle”, it seems little would change in countries that don’t use this sign much.