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.