all is later changed to official_ref=M**

alternative source:
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway

alternative source:
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway

alternative source:
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway

Btw. I can always be difficult to read emotions and intentions on text, so to clarify:

My goal is to find a common ground that makes sense, and perhaps that one or both of us learn something new along the way :)

Can you give a concrete example (nodes, ways, relations) where you see the problem?

Takst Sjælland is only the name of the ticket price system, but does not include anything else.

Movia is the name of the network, including subcontracting, customer service, etc.

Example of other networks are:
DSB (nationwide) [Danish State Railways]
Metro (Copenhagen only)
Flixbus
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movia_(transit_agency)

btw. I also speak danish if preferred :)

Yes, but that is not the transport network.
The network is Movia.

please, lad være med at tegne cykelstier som selvstændige veje, når de bare er adskilt fra gaden med en kantsten eller hvid streg.

Cykling er IKKE tilladt på den sti

crossing=no
Where definitely no crossing is possible/legal. Used at places where one would expect a crossing, but where there isn't one. As crossing=no excludes the existence of a crossing, it must be used without highway=crossing.
-- osm.wiki/Key:crossing

As it IS possibla and legal to cross at those junctions, I would find it borderline wrong to use that tag there.

sidewalk=none (or sidewak=no) could certainly be put there without doing something wrong as such.

It will clutter the structure a little bit, but that part is more about the mapping style of each mapper.

I would prefer it like it is now, but I also know that other mappers find that I make clutter when I for example split a road to indicate a traffic island, instead of just marking a node with highway=traffic_island

I think it will be up to you to decide :)

More here:

"Access values describe *legal* permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground may be different[...]"
-- osm.wiki/Key:access

Also:
osm.wiki/Good_practice

I fully agree that pedestrians should be guided to other crossings, but that task is not the responsibility of the dataset. In the bottom I'll explain where that responsibility lies.

The same way we don't put hgv=no on small streets if there is no sign forbidding to do so, even if it would be practically impossible for a large truck to pass through (we can use other helper tools though, like maxwidth:physical=*)

One of the few rules for mapping is "we map only what exists". It's a mere observation, not up to us to judge whether it would be a good idea.

When we set access restrictions it is only because there actually exist a sign, law or other measure that tells us that pedestrians are actually not allowed to use this way.

The actual responsibility for where to *suggest* people or vehicles to go, is at the routing engines (e.g. GraphHopper, OSRM). They are to read the map and interpret which suggestions (good or bad) they want to relay to the user.

In the case of where pedestrians should cross the routing engine could be programmed to try to favor actual crossings instead of just following a road - exactly like it can suggest vehicles to favor larger roads through a city instead of a route of backroads.

The point I'm making here is: What we put on the map is not suggestions, but just "what exists". It is up to software or people to read and make suggestions or opinions about what to do with the data.

I hope it make sense.

It makes no sense to add foot=no

It should only be applied when it is actually forbidden (by e.g. a sign) for pedestrians to use that way.

Have been corrected in osm.org/changeset/83275997

Have been corrected in osm.org/changeset/83275997

Except thay WERE correctly mapped as tram.

Please read the wikis before making wrong changes.

"the level crossings have active protection"
-- osm.wiki/Tag:railway=light_rail

"Where tram run along a track enclosed by the road, the trams are drawn as two ways and the road as ways on both sides." - this of course also applies when the tram is actually running on the one side of the road, but not further shielded.
-- osm.wiki/Tag:railway%3Dtram

Bortset fra at det er forkert brug af railway=light_rail

For at være railway=light_rail, skal der være aktive jerbaneoverskæringer og afskærmning fra anden trafik. Så snart den indgår i blandet trafik er det railway=tram.

The railroad did never cross over the rod.
The road is crossing over the railroad.

The structure seen on aerial photos, was the foundation (bottom) of the bridge.