This is a question to OsmAnd developers why built in plugin creates what looks like a vandalism instead of adding an additional tag of name:ee=Varsavi loomaaed. What I added through OsmAnd plugin was additional tag without removing anything else. However, it seems the plugin in thia case did sonething extra which was not planned. But going directly to claiming its vandalism... Whoa... Back off your horses now a little... Even moreso when there is a tag from where the changeset was created.

During the change I refered to the OSM wiki:
osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbus_station

osm.wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstation

Since here can enter only PEÜTK (Põhja-Eesti Ühistranspordi keskus) allowed transport, it is not allowed for usual traffic. Here only buses stop, the regional buses. Couple of local TLT buses but others are regional buses. No long distance buses in the classical meaning altho buses here do connect cities that could be under special occasions still be considered long distance buses. But according to OSM wiki, there is no such distinction between long distance buses and other bus route types. The requirement is public transport which buses here that stop definitely are, besides other requirements that
Balti jaam has two public transports - train and buses. If bus station is wrong, then railway station should be expanded to accomodate both of these terminals.
This is not a bus depot too where buses stay overnight or get serviced like TLT has at Kadaka tee.
The other way here would be this but it doesn't exactly suite well also:
osm.wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform

Either way, it is not a parking lot there, its a place where numerous bus routes start and end along with possible route change between other public transportation methods namely train, railway and local TLT buses.
Buses may park there overnight but its only for PEÜTK allowed buses.

Unless there is something more definitive or better to use instead of amenity=bus_station or public_transport=station for which I am open to use here instead, instead of just deleting the parking lot.

osm.org/node/8851165257#map=19/59.443754/24.743842

This point has no tags.

Implemented required fixes.

Changeset: 158698124

Wrong changeset comment. Should have been "Updates Kalevi P&R parking lot".

Hello! Actually I have no idea how that came to be. It may have been a glitch in ID since that point was not touched textually. Anyway I see it has been fixed before I could take care of it myself. Thank you for informing!

Lots of spare time, no good way to use different tools besides ID and simple dedication. That's all it takes to do stuff the long way with the tools at hand.

Thanks for reminding me. Missed these this time, my bad.

Speed limit on these paths is still 50kmh. This is observed on Mapillary street view imagery and also confirmed with survey on 14.02.2024.

I see your point now. However, right of way does not mean only that everyone should yield to you. It also means you have legal way to use (traverse) for example a way without restrictions (e.g. cyclers on combined pedestrian-cycling path or cyclers on vehicle path) and as I explained priorly, cycler has only very limited legal right of way on the crossings (crossing the crossing without restrictions), namely when vehicle will turn left-right and cycler goes straight or when on regulated crossing traffic light blocks any traffic around the crossing in order to let pedestrians and cyclers to cross the crossing, that's when cycler can legally cross the crossing without dismounting. These are the moments when you can easily put "yes" tag no matter what is the painted zebra looking like on the road.

Exempt from key:access wiki: "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."

The right of way on the regulated crossing for cyclers is a legal permission to cross without dismounting and must vehicles yield to cyclers. For unregulated crossing usually dismount but not always. For unregulated crossing it depends on the crossing itself. In this case road markings aka zebra do not tell such thing besides telling only that its the crossing or where on the crossing the pedestrians and cyclers should position themselves. Yes, cycler can legally cross such place but cycler does not get right of way legally in such case in which case you cant tag such crossing with "yes" tag only because it has zebra on it since second exempt clearly defines what is "yes" tag.

What you propose is not exactly what is on the ground and describes typical use, not how its legally used.

Second exempt from wiki: "Value - yes; Description - The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."

In the second exempt the legally-enshrined right of access on the crossing for the cycler in current legal ruling means cycler can cross the crossing without dismounting. Without dismounting the cycler either gains or loses the right of way against the vehicles in our legal ruling depending on the crossing itself. If we ignore legal ruling or start ignoring exceptions, its not "ground truth" anymore as is written in the first exempt. And the most basic legal side of the cycling on crossings without exceptions are those two occasions when cyclers have real legal right of way.

We are talking afterall in the context of how crossing is accessed legally, not how it is connected to the paths surrounding the crossing. You can put "yes" for cyclers on regulated crossing between two parallel running combined cycling-pedestrian paths because cyclers are legally allowed to cross in such place and since its regulated crossing, cycler has the right of way. But on the combined cycling-pedestrian path it could be legal access as a right of way (bicycle=yes, 100% cycling road) or it could be designated because it has been marked by traffic sign such way, making the path distinguishable from lets say simple footpath or sidewalk (combined cycling-pedestrian footpath/cycle path).

According to the wiki, access tags indeed relate to the right of way. Right of way is one of the ways to describe legal permission/restriction. Its the highest form of the permission of on the access level.
And if they do not relate, then what do they relate to?

Dismount is thrown out of the window then.

But if we ignore exceptions, then still we cant map "yes" tag everywhere where is zebra painted since yes tag means its a right of way and cyclists have right of way on crossing in very specific moments, usually when vehicles turn left-right but cyclists go straight or if traffic light gives a right of way. Hence designated tag basically everywhere despite crossing being traffic light regulated or any form of zebra on the crossing.
From this you can deduce and add "yes" only in places where the road crossing has on the rightmost vehicle line an additional right turn line on which there is pedestrian crossing. There cyclists have a right of way and the crossing can be mapped with "yes".

If to compile our conversation then I see it like this:
- example for bicycle=yes (real right of way):
osm.org/way/1115256184
osm.org/way/1208793540
osm.org/way/1115090193
osm.org/way/674427759

- example for bicycle=designated (cyclist should dismount to get real right of way. Since we threw dismount out, next best thing is designated tag): osm.org/way/716963857
osm.org/way/1105864115

The example of osm.org/way/1115986757 where bicycle access tag is pretty much useless is good example where I agree its pretty useless. But there are footways where its very much suitable to cycle on and its the path that needs proper tags and the crossing should then also have those tags for marked or unmarked crossing. So for the first proposal I partly agree.
For the second proposal simply zebra != bicycle=yes. Its not correct way to map since zebra does not give a right of way to the cyclist by itself, it just marks the crossing and that's it.
Same deal with third proposal. The road markings do not give a right of way for a bicycle, not zebra, not other markings. For the other crossing markings that are not pure zebra, they mostly just tell bicycle placement on the crossing. For example the 50% zebra 50% dashed traverse line would separate pedestrians and cyclers on the crossing. Such marking again does not give pure right of way on a crossing. You have to consider traffic lights, traffic flow, turns that are next and around said crossing with such crossing marking.

The thing is I have had no proper time to at least review the paths access tags besides vehicle paths where we have LS22 lg3 law applicable. Hence why there are so many paths with inconsistent and even incorrect access tags even in my most knowledgable district in Tallinn - the Mustamäe district. So its not anymore such a mystery on why crossing has more access than the paths it connects to. Its simply that the access tags of the paths or vice versa, have not been set up properly for whatever reason, in my case having only two hands instead of four.

But there are other access tags also. For an instance dismount tag. We could use dismount tag too as it gives specifically for cyclers on non-signed crossings a right of way as a pedestrian. Basically any crossing that is simple zebra, could use this tag instead of yes or designated. Even more so... In a lot of places I have seen cycling and pedestrian path road sign that ends cycling and pedestrian path right before the crossing, rendering the crossing that way to simple zebra where cycler has no right of way to cycle over while dismount would give a right of way as a pedestrian. How we should then mark such crossings? Dismount? Yes? Designated?

For crossings that have road markings such as simple zebra and cycling and pedestrian path has ended with a proper ending sign right before crossing I propose Foot=yes, bicycle=dismount.

For crossings where cycling and pedestrian path has not been ended with proper sign right before crossing and the road markings are simple zebra, I propose Foot=yes, bicycle=designated.

For crossings where the cycling and pedestrian path has not been ended with proper sign before the crossing AND the road markings are not zebra but some other road marking or combination of markings with zebra, I propose Foot=yes, bicycle=yes.

But this is all regarding the signed aka marked crossings.
Unmarked crossings are a bit more tricky one in this case so we should at least get some simple rules for mapping marked crossings first as was the initial idea of your original post. First things first as they say it :D

Hello!

It is a bit more complicated than that. If we start looking at the law, then by definition of ID "designated" tag tooltip, any crossing is designated for cycling, literally any. The definition in ID for the tag is: "Access allowed according to local signs or specific local law." While tag yes means: "Access allowed by law; a right of way."

Since I am working with ID as the best tool I can use right now, I have been mapping crossings mostly with designated since ID tooltip gave such hint.

The WIKI says on the other hand for designated: "A preferred or designated route for the class of traffic specified by the tag key, such as foot=designated, in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying something like "pedestrians allowed", or a pedestrian icon."
While for the yes tag: "The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."

Kind of complements the ID tooltips that are shown on access tags.

Now, if we start looking at local law, then literally its falling apart on any distinction of the access because anyone can cycle anywhere of any age despite various limits. Its the exceptions that allow any cycling on any path.
Hence why I have been tagging crossings with designated tag for cyclers. Its WIKI explanation is literally as wide as out local law regarding of cycling.

Same thing with footpaths, sidewalks etc unless there is specific sign that disallows usage of a path fir cyclers. The best example of this is the vehicle path in front of Kristiine keskus toward city center. There is explicit sign that disallows cycling on the vehicle path and cyclers must use the sidewalk.

Exact same problem is with pedestrians on cycling path. Our local law explicitly says that pedestrians are allowed on cycling road if there is low traffic on it. But how low or how high, is left to decide for the pedestrian and hence you can simply add once again "designated" tag for the cycling road for the pedestrian access.

So what I think about it? Well "it depends" is the answer here because of our law... Designated access tag had just so wide meaning that its basically safe bet to use if you dont know the area, dont have any street level imagery or any other kind of info that could set better tag for the path, area, crossing etc.

But we could come up with some simple rules anyway since slaping "designated" everywhere is a bit tedious in the end and does not give great feedback on what is actually at the site.

Building with address Sõpruse pst 212a at Lepistiku bus stop does not exist anymore.

Building with address Sõpruse pst 167b at Siili bus stop does not exist anymore.

Building with address Vilde tee 66a next to Lehola bus stop on Vilde tee, does not exist anymore.

And updates other stuff too, namely removes tag from Laki and Karjavälja crossing that allows pedestrians to walk on vehicle path as per LS22 lg3. Updates sidewalk tags.

Mostly everything is same yes with few minor differences. Im also in Palanga for few days 😅 Mostly updating stuff with StreetComplete and boy there is a lot there is a lot of data missing...

Yes, 90kmh is understandable, what is not really clear is that before highway crossing you get 70kmh sign, after it there is no sign. I take it as then you can go 90kmh unless speed limit sign works even after the highway crossing.
The other example I an in trouble is again, highway crossing, before the crossing is 70kmh sign (not a problem) but after the crossing is also a 70khm sign, everyone drives 70khm and then from all of a sudden, everyone accelerates to 90kmh yet there was no sign of any kind that would allow such speed. Any caveats I am missing here?

I guess you have reverted the changes?