Errore mio - volevo solo cambiare da cycleway a footway, ma ho tolto tutto. Questa stretta striscia di asfalto è presente sul lato est di Via San Pio X fra le due rotonde, é utilizzabile in bici, ma non è una cycleway. Farò il revert in questo senso. Sul lato opposto la mappa mostra una ciclopedonale. E' piu larga, ma anche questa non è segnalata come CICLO-pedonale sul terreno. dovrebbe diventare una footway con bicycle=permissive, se sei d'accordo.

Per la corsia riservata all'accesso al Pronto Soccorso (way/1281451569), forse sarebbe meglio utilizzare vehicle=emergency al posto di access=permit. Inoltre sarebbe anche da considerare l'uso utilizzare lane tagging (vedi osm.wiki/Lane_tagging_comparison)

typo "brifge" corrected. Thanks for spotting this

way/176017403 is in Poland ???

way/1272431845: I added bicycle=permissive as it is wide enough for bicyles, and is a safer option for cyclists. It's also in continuation from a signed segregetated foot-cycle-way to the West

way/1382016928: by convention, the markings seem to be usually mapped only on the crossing node, but not on the crossing way.

1459105433 like 176017403 (I suppose you mean way/1459105433):
This looks like a footpath, so it as a fottpath. If your prefer path, no problem. Important that the information like surface, smothness, width is present. In this specific cse the verrtical signin is most likely wrong: coming from the South, there is a sign that motor vehicles to destination. I presume this applies only to the southern, paved part of the way. The northern part is only compaced, and certanly not intened for for motorbikes.

1272431847 and 1272431846:
when adding/updating additional tags like oneway, segregated, and width I used JOSM and it's presets replaced "cycleway" with "path". In this case path and cycleway are equivalent. BTW this is not the case for not-segregated foot-cycle-ways in ITALY, which are legally "marciapiedi" on which bicycles are tolerated, but pedestrians have priority, and their use is not compulsary for cyclists (if they run parallel to roadways). therefore I woul say it's better not to use the tag highway=cycleway, but highway=path or even highway=footway.

Thanks anyway for checking.

Looks the same to me. I do not remember why I inserted the change.
There seem to be several situations of that kind in Vicenza, i.e. large sidewalks/footways that are used by cyclists, but are not signposted as such. Maybe the best way to reflect the reality on the ground would be highway=footway combined with bicycle=permissive? If you are a local mapper, please feel free to decide. I am an only an occasional visitor.