If you're on a shared path that does not work because of people coming in opposite direction! There is no perfect answer though.
Ride on the left / walk on the right (except at blind bends) is still the best policy because then different modes coming in opposite directions can see each other and usually figure it out.
My local park used to have a dotted white line down the centre of the path with painted signs for bikes on one side and pedestrians the other. Everyone ignored it. It's gone now.
Yeah, there was similar near me. It was removed partly because it uglied up a listed landscape and partly because it was causing conflict at a junction, mainly walker-walker and cycle-cycle because the peak flows occurred at different times dictated by the different speeds that people travelled away from the nearest road and rail crossings - first there would be a surge in cycle traffic, then a surge in walkers. The narrowest arm is still marked as split (cycles by the carriageway, walkers by the fence) but it's routinely ignored except at the junction end.
Milton Keynes tried a similar scheme, albeit without the paint. They came up with the "Redway Code", which sternly advised cyclists to cycle on the left, and pedestrians to walk in the right.
All well and good, until you meet someone coming in the opposite direction. Sufficeth to say that by lunchtime on the day of publication it was being comprehensively ignored.
I think that was printed on the back of the Redway maps, so it wasn't visible on any maps posted on noticeboards and was seldom looked at by anyone using the map (usually folded into the top of a bar bag) unless it caught their eye as it was refolded. I doubt more than a handful of Redway users even knew it existed and even fewer could tell you any of its points. I may even have a copy on an old map in a box of old MK stuff here somewhere.
Where shared paths are created from existing footpaths/footways, then pedestrians retain the right to walk on any part of it. It is cyclists who are restricted to any marked area.
Which the Redways weren't, so what's the point of that reply?