Cycling through the Vabaduse väljak is definitely not prohibited!

The sign probably refers to wide rickshaw types bikes and not regular bikes:
https://news.err.ee/840310/tallinn-city-council-to-introduce-new-bicycle-rickshaw-regulations-in-july

I try to use common sense - when there is a bike parking infrastructure then it also must be routable by bike:
node/9998188475

Please use amenity=pharmacy and healthcare=pharmacy tags for only pharmacies. Shops like "Looduse Abi", that sell cosmetics, nutritional supplements and other health products, are not pharmacies and should be tagged with something else like shop=nutrition_supplements or shop=chemist

Another issue I noticed - cycleway 1155390144 is not routable from one end.

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq, maybe you can answer, what is the best way to connect node/10744861718 to the rest of the road network:

a) connect the end directly to Pärnu mnt
b) connect it to the footway network and make sure the section that crosses the Pärnu mnt until way/987191893 is routable/has bicycle=yes tag?

Please don't use production environment of testing. There are dev servers for that: https://apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/

Please make sure not add duplicate pharmacies! For example "Tartu Sõbra Apteek" was already in OSM as a way: 278982491

Currently I deleted the node/7755823575 for this pharmacy.

I am no expert on OSM tagging and I have only visited Voormäe couple of times, so I can't comment on what would be the best way to map it in OSM. All I can say is:

1) "Vooremäe" is a name of a popular area and this name is commonly used.

2) I personally don't see any issues with current tagging

When it comes to semantics, what does the name "Vooremäe" actually represent? Could it be, that this is not just an elevated area? Maybe it's a combination of landform, forest, infrastructure and all the recreational activities it is suitable for? If so, I don't see a tagging issue since this forest is part of Vooremäe and it can be used represent "Vooremäe" on a map.

Here are 2 minor usability issues I see when name tag from forest is removed:

1) When I search for "Vooremäe", I expect to see an area of Vooremäe, not a single node.

2) When browsing the map, carto currently displays "Vooremäe" from zoom level 12. In other maps it is also rendered adequately. Comparing this to for example Suur Munamägi, which is natural=peak, it is severely underrepresented by most renderers at the same zoom level. I know perfectly that "tagging for the renderer" is a bad practice but when it comes to usability, renderers shouldn't be ignored completely.

PS: Sorry for mixing up wikipedia links

In my opinion there are 3 distinct features around this area:

1) Tiny hilltop, that can be mapped as a node in OSM. This is also the highest peak in "Kastre vald" at 125,6m:
https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voorem%C3%A4gi#/media/Fail:Vooremagi.JPG

2) Elevated area, rough approximation:
https://xgis.maaamet.ee/xgis2/page/link/bmktUwWR

3) Forest area, as defined in relation/1458796

If you ask me how to name these distinct features, then peak should be named "Vooremägi" and the whole elevated area is commonly called "Vooremäe" or "Voorekas". I suspect the forest area doesn't need a name but since it overlaps nicely with elevated area it doesn't make sense to have 2 similar polygons for both "Vooremäe" and "Vooremäe mets".

There is a tiny hilltop called Vooremägi but the area around it, which happens to perfectly match relation/1458796, is commonly known as Vooremäe. These are distinct features.

Pikse, even if the forest itself doesn't have an official name, the whole area is collectively know as Vooremäe or Vooremägi. So I wouldn't change it.

I cleaned up Viljapuu terviserada and fixed a bridge issue (#9 and #10): changeset/132155082

Based on Strava heatmap it looks Viljapuu terviserada actually continues to the south until Raudürdi tee

Changed the highway type to footway, since pedestrian way doesn't make any sense in here: changeset/132154605

When I used a pedestrian highway type in a park it was based on Maa-ameti "Jalgtänav" classification.

I also believe such discussions are necessary. But would it be better to move these to somewhere else? Since talk-ee seems to be dead and previous forum is being retired the only logical place seems to be new community forums: https://community.openstreetmap.org

1) I wasn't using Google maps as source.

2) Not sure about the bridge. If you belie bicycle is incorrectly tagged feel free to correct it.

3) While Maa-ameti kaart classifies Saarepiiga puiestee (7841216) as Jalgtänav then in Teeregister the whole street with the bridge has "Liigitus":

Tee tüüp: 5 - jalg- ja jalgrattatee

Tee jaotus: 2 - kohalik tee

Here you can see the traffic signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/6VSntf5K5Ji65sTP6
https://goo.gl/maps/wYLeQ4cg4JER7YQu9

My understanding is that these puiestee streets in Lasnamäe are a little bit different from usual kergliiklustee because they are wider, share a common naming schema and connect different areas together. Therefore I expect them to be somehow distinguished form the rest of footways.

Even in Maa-ameti map these streets are visually different by having dotted green line and by having "Tähtsus: Jalgtänav" tag:
https://xgis.maaamet.ee/xgis2/page/link/cYuzPofv

Now that the carto tiles are updated for all zoom levels I agree that in some cases they appear to be almost too wide...

But if "jalgtänava" classification don't match the pedestrian highway type then feel free to change it back to footway. I don't mind if jalgtänava definition is ignored.

Lastly I found it interesting that some sections of Saarepiiga pst were changed to pedestrian 4 years ago:
way/48376756/history

I personally find it a little confusing to spit such a short street into different waytypes.

Hi Zverik!

The issue with bicycle routing is that some tools like Strava won't allow routing on footways unless there is a bicycle yes tag. According to liiklusseadus this kind of approach is actually correct since you shouldn't cycle on "kõnnitee" and "jalgtee" under normal circumstances.

And I agree, in urban areas where the path/footway is managed it is better to use footway. But in this case I don't see how this path managed at all. To me it looks like informal path.

Also, by definition you shouldn't make any assumptions on walkability on paths. It's better to use surface/smoothness/mtb:scale/sac_scale tags for better description.

way/161464733 - this should be path since it is actively used by cyclists. While footway with bicycle=yes tag would work as well, it doesn't make sense in this case. I'm changing it back to path.

Thanks for letting me know. Just checked that there are total of 3 required URL parameters for showing detailed Strava heatmap. Currently it looks like "Signature" parameter is left out so these Key-Pair-Id/Policy values should be harmless.

Path vs footway - in this case it doesn't really matter. This trail is clearly build for hiking but I would say that over 90% is easily ridable with MTB. There are some tight and difficult sections as well so this might not suitable for all skill levels.