Use tools like OSM Deep History to see who and when changed this particular way:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/166736405

This shop=supermarket tag seems very confusing. If walk-in customers can't buy good from this "supermarket" it shouldn't be defined as one. Even inventing new tag seems more appropriate if existing tags aren't suitable.

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq, I apologize if my responses have come across as offensive in any way. I am genuinely puzzled by the existence of a 6km old railway, repurposed as a "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" without any motorized traffic, and yet, in the middle, there is a ~100m section that is somehow not designated for bikes. This seems illogical to me.

I don't really care what is in the Tallinn map, I just used it as an additional reference. My only arguments are:

Kitsarööpa tee is clearly defined in the teeregister: https://teeregister.mnt.ee/reet/map?featureOid=8308002

The entire Kitsarööpa tee appears to be well-marked (although this is based on my subjective opinion). According to the Liiklusseadus, the entire road should be classified as "jalgratta- ja jalgtee."

I believe that safety and usability concerns are subjective and may not be entirely helpful in determining whether Kitsarööpa tee, as a whole, qualifies as a "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" or not.

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq, let's consider a scenario where the Tallinna linnavalitsus intends to improve the signs and markings along Kitsarööpa tee to clearly indicate that the entire road is designated for cyclists and pedestrians. There are no actual changes made to the surface, width, or other physical aspects. Where precisely should these signs and markings be placed?

Pikse, thank you for your feedback!

Based on my understanding, Kitsarööpa tee does have proper "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" signs at every major intersection with motorized traffic. Additionally, there are numerous small footways and (informal) paths that allow entry and exit onto Kitsarööpa tee. Does qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq genuinely believe that there should be extra signage after each such intersection?

This changeset should be reverted because it may adversely affect routing. Considering the popularity of this cycling infrastructure, I believe it's irresponsible to remove the designated tag for this ~100m section.

PS: I acknowledge that there are places where cycling infrastructure signs and markings are inadequate and confusing. In such instances, different individuals may interpret them differently. However, I don't think Kitsarööpa tee falls into this category.

Unfortunately I don't recall seeing any "Jalgratta- ja jalgtee lõpp" signs after the bridge crossing...

So this all boils down to subjective evaluation - is this short section safe as a bicycle infrastructure?

Now I'm starting to get curious :)

Lets say you are coming from east side towards the bridge. In the beginning there are "Jalgratta- ja jalgtee" signs: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1462499577421908&focus=photo

At what point do you feel this kergliiklustee suddenly ends? Are there any intersections with other small paths where you think necessary traffic signs are missing and therefore this Kitsarööpa tee is no longer Jalgratta- ja jalgtee?

Just to be clear, Kitsarööpa tee has a very clear definition. As far as I've noticed this definition aligns with:
1) what is "on the ground"
2) what is in teeregister
3) what is in the official Tallinn map
4) how it is used by cyclists

In all instances Kitsarööpa tee is defined as kergliiklustee or "jalgratta- ja jalgtee".

The fact that a small sections of Kitsarööpa tee might be more dangerous or have different surfaces, does not change the definition of Kitsarööpa tee.

What doesn't matter? In every intersection with motorized traffic Kitsarööpa tee has "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" signs.

Kitsarööpa tee is one continuous road:
https://teeregister.mnt.ee/reet/map?featureOid=8308002

1) https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1462499577421908&focus=photo

2) Use width to indicate how narrow or wide it is. This particular section is regularly used by thousands of cyclist: https://www.strava.com/segments/14231541

I disagree with this change. Kitsarööpa tee as a whole is a significant part of Tallinn's cycling infrastructure, and it MUST be tagged with bicycle=designated. I strongly suggest that you restore bicycle=designated tag.

I'm fairly certain that bicycle=designated applies to whole Kitsarööpa tee:

https://www.tallinn.ee/et/jalgrattateed-ja-rattaparklad-tallinnas

https://teeregister.mnt.ee/reet/map?featureOid=8308002

Palun vaata, et sa täiendavaid silte lisades, hoonetelt building silti ära ei võta. Hetkel taastasin selle: changeset/144188071

Hi! When deleting buildings, please check source/source:addr tags. Buildings with 2023 in source might not be visible in current orthophoto, but can be visible in kiirortofoto: https://fotoladu.maaamet.ee/?basemap=kiirortofoto&zlevel=15,27.28146,58.20663&fotoarhiiv&overlay=tyhi

Currently I restored this deleted building: way/1222925761/history

PS: Maa-amet põhikaart is updated once per year. Maa-amet also has "Kaart" imagery that is updated daily and can be used in iD as custom background:

https://kaart.maaamet.ee/wms/alus-geo?LAYERS=CORINE,BAASKAART,KAART24,HALDUSPIIRID,TEED,KYLAD&STYLES=&FORMAT=image/jpeg&CRS=EPSG:3857&WIDTH=256&HEIGHT=256&BBOX={https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bbox}&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap

According to wiki changing building tag to ruins is not the best practice. If building type is missing then it doesn't matter if you replace "yes" with "ruins". But generally any other value in building tag shouldn't be overwritten.

It's just two nodes with same location, both connected to a way. Current version of iD suggest merging these node when editing:
node/11291352728
node/11291333520

Varemetes hoone - way/231841578

Antud juhul peaks building=yes silt vist ikkagi alles jääma?

Mulle endale tundub, et varemete kaardistamisel on building=yes + ruins=yes kõige levinum.

Alternatiivina peaks ka ruins:building=yes sobima.

Hi Guido,
I've noticed that you, or your bot script, have been fixing this duplicate node issue for Naya Kabir edits for quite long time.

Could it be that is caused by a bug in Go Map?
https://github.com/bryceco/GoMap/issues/206

Have you noticed similar issues with other Go Map changesets?

Hi! I noticed that the newly created building part [/way/1217080636](way/1217080636) is with building=apartments tag. I believe correct tagging would be to use building:part=apartments without building tag.

Although this is not wrong, what is the benefit, if both the building and the building parts have full address? This is such a minor thing, but I believe the address shouldn't be duplicated on both elements. Sure, if you include additional details like addr:unit to building part, then it's perfectly fine.