I agree with this perspective. For my part, I supported the development of the very colorful Cincinnati Bike Map, which relied on OSM to prioritize physical realities over the aspirational routes the city and state governments had designated and signposted (verifiable! deterministic! silly!). If a topologically coherent cycling network is uninteresting or useless, then the concerns about this proposal being car-centric must be a bit overstated.
We’re seeing these contradictory reactions because the proposal is breathtakingly ambitious in scope but raises more questions than it answers. I hope no one took me too seriously that one time we were talking about highway=path and I started digressing:
(So no one will think they’re alone in sometimes longing for things to have worked out differently.)