Hi
Why have you deleted the viewpoint at the top of the North East Buttress ridge?

I believe you. Cycling from E I couldn't see it and it is visible only at low grass. I would prefer to cycle on the N carriageway than on this sidewalk. Two years being deleted shows how it is maintained and useful.

Please use route=bicycle only to signed trails route=bicycle , not for one's fantasy trails. As real trails are more useful for less experienced tourists mapping fantasy trails is misleading and potentially harmful.

There are a number of alternatives where the green bicycle trail could go, Palackeho, N sidewalk (it has at least a barrier) or Alvinczyho street http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=16/48.7234/21.2674/standard&lonlats=21.276805,48.717901;21.25847,48.720634&nogos=21.270567,48.719135,48

But it doesn't matter - nobody maps planned motorways as finished because there is no other alternative route.

1) It is wide enough, like the signed cycleway on SE. At crossings kerbs are low.
2) In some renders it can be shown as good for cycling. It may be taken into account by routers like BRouter.
So what value does your tagging add for the path users?

It is not just a normal pavement for pedestrians, because of its remoteness it is shared with cyclists and it is also designed for cyclists. Pity you ignore the question whether such tagging adds any value for the path users.

Why? There is no sign it is not a shared use path. What value would add such tagging for the path users?

Do you mean sidewalk? I don't remember any big difference with the cycleway 76 on SE, beside the number

I've just checked it wasn't you who set bicycle=no. If crossing sidewalks are not for bicycles then setting bicycle=no is as needed as setting motor_vehicle=no, but making more problems for some routers like Brouter

Hello. Setting bicycle=no on a crossing=traffic_signals within
highway blocks the highway for bicycles, so I delete bicycle=no

Because they are unpaved what is the most important for road users.

A dokładniej przystanków PST z chodnikami powyżej.

Cześć. Możesz mi wytłumaczyć cel łączenia na mapie obiektów, które nie są połączone w rzeczywistości, bo są na różnych poziomach, jak w przypadku przystanków PST?

Dzięki za odpowiedz. Śmieszne, bo nie widzę powodu do takiej uchwały, tym bardziej, jeśli drogi i tak utrzymuje miasto na prawach powiatu.

Na jakiej podstawie?

Hi
It seems this and other bings in Lothians are Tagging for the renderer osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer when a bing is tagged as its contrary - a quarry. It is also misleading because it tells that industrial activity takes place when actually anybody can enter. I think it will the best to map surrounding fields and pastures and to leave an unused bing as a white blob with a name and a peak. Landuse=landfill also would be better.

One side black the other red. I checked the Wiki and I've corrected it

No, it is segrageted

Hi. Because it is not signed - it doesn't exist in the field.

Yes, it's very good,

zaorane - ploughed. I wasn't sure whether to delete it. I cycled from E and I couldn't see a track so I returned. I tagged zorane it to make it easy to revert in case there is some track on W part or a farmer would decide he would make a seasonal track.
Translation:
Nie byłem pewien czy to skasować. Przyjechałem rowerem od E i nie mogłem znaleźć drogi więc wróciłem. Oznaczyłem zaorane, żeby łatwo można było cofnąć lub gdy rolnik zdecyduje, że zrobi sezonową drogę.