* "from now granular" = "from more granular"

Ok. For me gravel is just mostly lose rocks, difficult to ride a bicycle. Compacted may have some loose gravel, but there is always a more solid base which is compacted from now granular material. It maybe shaky and uncomfortable, but not difficult to ride a bicycle and hard to loose balance. But that is my understanding.

Hi and welcome!
Make sure these are actually gravel roads. What we often call gravel road is not a gravel road in OSM! In Estonia they are usually compacted.

See
:Examples with notes" here surface=gravel

And "compacted" here surface=*

Please update the surface if it's compacted. Thank you!

It seems "right of way" definition created some confusion.

From Google translate:

1) the legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another.

2) the legal right of a pedestrian, vehicle, or ship to proceed with precedence over others in a particular situation or place.

You are interpreting what's described with "right of way" as the second definition, while it's the first one in case of your wiki quote.

Access tags are about access, no double meaning.

I'll repeat again: priority does not matter in this case.

We understand the law the same way, we have different understanding of access tags. Please try to understand the whole context of the wiki article, not a single phrase from it
access=*

Hi, you shouldn't add names to roads just because some tool complains about them being unnamed. You should mark it as false-positive in that tool. I'm talking about
way/213116026

Can you please link the place where it's written that they relate to right of way? In my understanding they relate to being allowed to traverse the way, not that everyone should yield for you.

access tags are not related to the right of way.

dismount is a big no from me. You don't have to dismount and in practice it's not required. We aren't mapping right of way here. It's going to impede routing a lot.

My suggestion is simple
1) If the we are connecting footways without bicycle access tags, we shouldn't care about bicycle access on a crossing, no need to add it.
2) If we are connecting ways with bicycle access and it's a usual zebra, we add bicycle=yes
3) If we are connecting ways with bicycle access and it's marked with one of the three ways bicycle-pedestrian crossing is marked, then it's bicycle=designated

The advantage of this is that you can see everything from aerial imagery.

This is of course if crossing is mapped separately at all.

About unmarked crossings, they aren't that often mapped as separate ways, but if they are, I think they usually should inherit access tags from connecting ways. Unless it's a crossing with high kerbs, probably not a bicycle=designated.

In the example I've linked way/1115986757 I wouldn't add any bicycle=* tags

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