ah, yes, you're right. I've adjusted it to follow the light visible path.
I will eventually get to examine this area in the near future. Last weekend I was on the opposite walls, going over Königschusswandsteig and Bismarcksteig.

Right. That part is hard to say from this perspective. But the path is clearly visible on the latest aerial imagery.
This is a Klettergebiet so I assume it is full of approach paths.

Hi! This one is based on the aerial imagery.
I'm planning to go there in the future and check out the climbing routes.

Hi David! Die Name ist mir unbekannt. :)
Ich habe dort gewandert und die Bohrhaken gesehen. Wahrscheinlich ist es irgendwo dokumentiert.
Danke, ebenfalls!

Here's the latest thread on the topic, with some history: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-the-current-climbing-wiki-correct/120225/

Hey! It is really a pleasure and honor to have your feedback.
As far as the technicalities go, the summary is contained in the wiki at
osm.wiki/Climbing
I've seen quite a few threads, some older than 10 years, where these issues are discussed. Then they have been summarized on the wiki page. I've also initiated a few discussions at the end of the last year.
I find having crags on a map quite useful. Whether it is practical to have every route or not, is a separate story. You are right in that the routes are (mostly) vertical. That's why route_bottom is mostly used. Easy multi-pitches can easily be as horizontal as they are vertical. But nevermind.
As OSM is just a database, projects like Open Climbing are utilizing it in creative ways to also contain photos and topos. I really like and appreciate the effort. I do like to have multi-pitch routes shown. Sometimes I add them as a crag, so they are visible within an area. Still no precise definition in that regard. I guess, in OSM things just evolve and are rarely established.
We've had tons of discussions about the categorization of Paths, over several months, with nothing coming out of it.
Even if not used, I think it does not harm to have this information on a map. There's a lot of information that I find less useful than climbing routes so I would not worry about that too much. Climbing routes don't change that often. Or at least not as often as kebab kiosks.
I believe it generally helps make the sport more accessible and popular. Which should also result in more people getting the actual guides to get full topos of the routes (or use sites like Bergsteigen). Seeing a climbing crag on a map would give one an idea that climbing in that region is possible, eventually prompting them to look for more information (I'm definitely in that group, for example).
In any case, I'll follow you on OSM as I would definitely like to climb some routes in the Hochschwab area this year. So far I've only done some scrambling on Ebenstein and Feistringturm.

>I am not sure if it makes sense to tag all faces.

Of course not. Just those that have known climbing routes. Meaning somebody has climbed them, suggested a grade, and there is a topo available for other climbers.

Oh, it would be nice if all faces were climbable and had topos available. :)
See, i.e. https://www.bergsteigen.com/touren/klettern/vilya/

Hi! I'm adding the missing climbing tags to some items that are already on the map, or adding new crags and areas for those that are not. I'm adding the data from other public climbing sources. There are a lot of items in OSM that are missing the climbing tags, which were probably agreed-upon later.
With these tags, the items will appear on https://openclimbing.org/ or other renderers which have implemented the new tagging scheme (see Climbing on the wiki).
Ringkamp, here, I've added as a node. I usually add routes and group them into a Crag relation if I'm visiting the area.
If you know some more climbing areas/crags, please do get in touch with me. I'd be happy to add them to the map.
If you're into climbing, you can also add them yourself. I'd be happy to discuss anything about the tagging scheme for climbing as I'm quite interested to get more of it into OSM.

The same is with OpenAndroMaps and Mapy.cz. The few that don't show the areas (Organic Maps, osmapp), don't show sinkholes at all.

Correct, but that's a problem of a renderer, then. In OsmAnd, the sinkholes areas are rendered correctly and that makes a big difference when hiking in a pathless terrain.

Possibly, but that seems like a work-around for a non-existing problem. I don't see a good reason to avoid mapping a sinkhole as an area.

There is a significant difference in size of different sinkholes. Pol Monster, just a bit to the left, has a diameter of over a hundred meters. A node does not do it justice.

Hi! You have moved Am Spitz bus station way out of it's position. Please fix.

It is a Klettersteig that goes through a small cave. People pass from one side of the Grat to the other.

Thanks for that clarification, Luzandro!

"The rest I just saw on the aerial photos from BEV. "
... so it seemed like a fair expectation that it would continue like in the section I saw.

If you really wish to be completely pedantic, you can cut it back to where it was originally, up to the water pond for live stock. Up to here I can confirm that it is clearly visible and flat, can't be mistaken. The rest I just saw on the aerial photos from BEV.
Yes, it does seem a soft soil. I just crossed it, did not really walk on it for longer distance. It seems like one of those tracks for getting the hay out of the pastures.

I myself have seen the part up until the water pond. Actually, a few. The rest of the track is clearly visible on BEV INSPIRE, which usually has more fresh imagery, and as can be seen above in the Tags section, so I'm not sure which aerial photo you are referring to.

I agree with what you are saying but that is just another way of looking at the same thing.
I would refer you to the path examples: osm.wiki/Path_examples
in particular
"A path with no signs at all but too narrow for motorcars so it's not a highway=track but starts from the end of a track. Allowed and not totally unsuitable for cycling, but known to be walkable.", and
"A path through an urban forest as in "there is something used for transport"; walking is possible on dry and non-winter days with a sure foot, but you wouldn't route anyone there."
I don't see you adding any scrubs to mark an impassable terrain but you simply removed the path, instead.
There is a lot of dead-end paths on Hochschwab exactly for the reason you mention, although it is perfectly walkable. Do these dead ends mark that you can't go further? Or do they mean it's open to go wherever you want? It's a huge difference.