Well I think we should ignore the exceptions and not make people abuse them without a reason. Bicycle=yes can be added on footways where there is no good alternative, but that's besides the point.

In this case there is a crossing where both sides don't have bicycle=designated or anything about bicycle access, but the crossing itself suddenly has it. IMO it's a bit strange that crossing has more access than the paths it connects.

As for iD tooltips, I don't think we should 100% trust them. I don't mean that there is any big problem with how the things are mapped, but maybe in future we can be better.

One other thing I'd like to also get rid of is a

highway=footway
bicycle=designated

at least on non-crossings, as this is not the best combination and you won't really find wiki examples of it. Some clients like Komoot treat it differently.

If the path is signed, then a different combination is better

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated

(or at least the iD-way of highway=cycleway, this time CyclOSM will be confused)

Sometimes there is also footway=sidewalk, but as it turns out

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
footway=sidewalk

is perfectly ok
footway=sidewalk

Hi, I've looked at some bicycle=designated roads and noticed that there are some crossings which are mapped with it

way/1115986757

which are between footways where bicycles are not welcome.

IMO we should map
bicycle=designated
on crossings where there are special road markings or signs for bicycles and
bicycle=yes
where there is none, but the crossing connects highways which bicycles are intended to use.

And there is no reason to map one as bicycle anything if it's between footways.

What do you think?

IMO using mtb:scale is not better than bicycle=no and I'm not sure I like the idea of an umpaved forest path being a footway.

I too think that mtb:scale may not exactly fit here. It seems to be more about stuff like obstacles, rocks, incline, not getting stuck in a bog.

It's kind of strange, even for walking it would be beneficial to have a tag which would describe area as boggy for a router, yet I don't think we have anything like that.

Found this discussion related to bicycles https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/soft-and-boggy-paths/8429

This part you surveyed is also pretty "warm" on Strava's heatmap, it's the part to the west of it which is questionable

I don't know about this path, that's why I'm asking. I often see people mistaking access for "my own skill doesn't allow this". There are 1 or 2 bicycle tracks on Strava heatmap, but maybe the person dismounted. Or maybe it's passable on a fat bike?

Some other reasons:
5) curbs, even small ones might be unpleasant on a road bike
6) "cycleway" sometimes has more incline than a throughfare
7) "cycleways" may be more dangerous than a throughfare (Tabasalu descent)
8) "cycleways" may have strange zigzags which make you break (Right after Tabasalu descent, in the city direction)

And there is no such thing in the law as "road for cars". The road is for everyone.

What you've linked is not a law, please refer to § 32 of Road Traffic Act

(1) A cycle and light moped may be ridden:
1) on a cycle lane;
2) on a cycle track;
3) on a cycle and pedestrian track;
4) close to the right edge of the carriageway, except during a left turn or U-turn specified in subsection 1 of § 48 of this Act;
5) on the shoulder.

access tags are about legal access, not personal opinions. To a degree I'm ok when people bend them in form of bicycle=yes on footways where city just didn't think of the cyclists and no penalty for them would be enforced, but restricting something without there being an actual restriction is something which we shouldn't do.

Cycling on what the law calls "carriageway" is allowed.

Cycling on footways (you've mentioned eastern side) is forbidden for adults and since there is a "safe" alternative on western side shouldn't be mapped. As I've mentioned, I'm ok if people bend this rule where there are no safe alternatives for a casual cyclist and the road is not too crowded.

There are many reasons why cyclists may prefer main thoroughfare to combined cycling/pedestrian path
1) They move at high speed and don't want to hit a pedestrian at 40km/h
2) There are many people which walk randomly as opposed to cars. It's especially dangerous near children even at low speed. People want to walk and enjoy their day, not constantly be aware and afraid of a cyclists.
3) Drivers coming from connected service ways onto the crossing without expecting anyone to approach fast, while they would yield for a cyclist on a main thoroughfare.
4) Cyclists are also required to cross crossings at the speed of pedestrian by law, while there is no such need on a main thoroughfare.

There may be other reasons and it's ok, since the law allows it.

Smarter routers https://brouter.m11n.de have profiles which allow to select which style of cycling you prefer more, we should leave this decision them and the user.

You can find Road Traffic Act in English here
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/503072023004/consolide

That's up to the cyclists and routers to decide.

And Narva mnt near Reidi tee

Hi, is cycling explicitly forbidden here way/1124645979 or is it just very hard?

And the same question about Pallasti street. Are there signs which forbid cycling?

I've removed strange bicycle tags you've added and noticed that you've added them recently. What's the reason for adding bicycle=no here?

Hi, since you've edited many pharmacies, maybe you know what to do in a similar situation here note/3692292

But in case of windmills I think it's ok just to add

windmill:disused=yes
functional=no
windmill:vanes=no

and leave it as windmill

Hi, this is not a windmill. It was a windmill, we map what objects are today.

Hi, good edit.
One thing that can be improved is that default name value should be in a local language and it's the English one which should be added separately

Oh, you've removed access=destination from a small part of the street, thanks, didn't understand it at first.

Will also check out Vesivärava today. it's probably motor_vehicle=destination