It's not against osm etiquette if it's really named like this. I though that the name doesn't belong here. Maybe I'd add some word like "koopia mõõtkavas" to make it clear, but it depends. Maybe just a note or description tag.

Track name seems suspicious

You've removed amenity=school from this building

way/77185785

Was it by mistake?

way/1322157898

Such roads usually shouldn't have a name. It's not Liiva street, just some connecting service road.

In such cases you can check against Maa-amet and Teeregister.

The only exception if there is a street name sign placed on that street in reality. Note that house address signs are not street name signs.

Hi, I don't what kind of paths those are, but forest paths are actually usually highway=path.

Paths allows routing for mountain bikes, for example.

Unless those are man-made for walking, paths are actually better than footways in such cases.

*married=mapped

You can keep both on one way or the grass could be married separately, I think there are some tiles between curb and grass.

Data in OSM can have inconsistent quality, but still we should try not to delete other people's work.

Isn't there both a curb and a grassy area?

Afaik The default osm map was initially intended as a feedback mechanism for mappers, not end users, though in practice it became the "default" raster map. It doesn't even have a separate way to show cycling-pedestrian ways and the pedestrian won't know where they can walk. You can't really split all cycling-pedestrian paths.

Just cycleway:oneway=* will be shown as blue "cycleway" without directions which is also not ideal.

Though IMO there is nothing incorrect data-wise in using just cycleway:oneway=* without oneway.

Note that there is a similar situation on Majaka.

Such frequent placement of nodes creates an impression that they were mapped from a really high-quality data source. While in reality in some places they drift from the actual path or follow gps noise.

I think in some places where nodes are too close, they could be cleaned up. For example node/12222260553

Also there are places with quite straight segments, but they still have multiple nodes in-between. For example this node
node/12222260272

Hi,
nice paths, but keep in mind that your GPS isn't that accurate. Your lines have TOO MANY points. I've checked some paths against Maa-amet's lidar data and they are off by more than distance between neighboring nodes.

BTW, this path you've deleted
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/991301657
is visible on lidar imagery too. But maybe it's overgrown. I've walked it like 2 years ago.

consider this tag too

vending=gas

Hi and welcome back!
Just for your information, you don't need to add all those

bicycle=yes
foot=yes
horse=yes
motor_vehicle=yes

They are assumed by default.

Hi, to restrict access through a gate, you need a node on the road. So the gate, which is represented here as a line and the road must have node in common on their intersection.

Add the same tags on this gate node as you've added on the gate way.

It's ok that node and way will duplicate each other.

I recommend to use access=private instead of no though. Construction vehicles can probably pass here.

I also recommend removing all other more accurate access tags like bicycle=no, since they will use the default access value if not specified.

As I understand the removal / attempt to make the track from the asphalt road in Kõlli järv direction was a mistake and you've fixed it. And for you the question is about the other direction.

I've restored the road where it clearly exists on aerial imagery with a private access and deleted the new track along the asphalt road.

As for cycling route I'm not sure - it's a really local route which may not exist anymore, that's why I'm not sure there is a point in inventing something.

1) The question is about this road
https://osmcha.org/changesets/157111365?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22EdnaV%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22EdnaV%22%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%7D

the southern part was completely erased, but I guess it's still there at least partially.

2) Thanks for clearing this up, that there indeed are signs. (Though just "eramaa" sign doesn't forbid cyclists and pedestrians by itself). Still, a road is a road and map should reflect this. You should not delete it. We should just tag it as private. Different tags can be added to show how well maintained it is. See wiki for surface and grade.

5) I see that you are adding a track besides the road. I don't see it on aerial imagery. Is it there in reality?

way/1319289551#map=16/58.02593/26.39754

6) What's the source for the bicycle route being redirected there? Are there signs or any other data source? I think if the route is not maintained enough - it goes through roads where access was forbidden and there is no info on the internet, we should just remove it from at least those roads, but not invent a new route.

Please stop your edits immediately, I'll write in more detail.

Hi,
1) why did you delete the track to the south of the Arula - Sihva?
2) The track to the North is not a track anymore - it's nothing, just a line. It should stay a highway=track
3) If you want to set a private access, use access=private instead of access=no
4) Are there any signs which forbid access to the North? I can't see any from here
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=58.02855439999999&lng=26.392600399999992&z=17.401561976662112&focus=photo&pKey=330148892913506&x=0.4077168312691912&y=0.6121442493294554&zoom=0.6976744186046513

I meant the use_sidepath issue here :)

Changing the default in iD would result in people starting to change highway=cycleway into highway=path. With two schemes I think the best thing is to just bring awareness of them.