Your question "why" was, I believe answered quite fully by the history of the object and the changeset tags here. That's why I asked the question above.

May I ask what brought this edit and the others at @NinaNesterovaOSM/changeset_comments to your attention?

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 162736067, 162736386, 162736504, 162736625, 162736843, 162737594, 162737644, 162795263, 162795676, 162795853, 162818469, 162819929.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see changeset/162736067 and osm.org/user_blocks/17316

Hello, do you mind if I ask a personal question - are you a human?

Thanks

Currently the relation relation/4283214 is just a line with one member way/317689837 ? I'm guessing that "Part of Ausestown" is not actually a thing but "Causestown" is?

I asked my friend "Eliza" for help and she suggested asking:

Is it because you have not got any links there is an unsuitable sign
which may found at the top end covering that you came to me?

What, exactly, does the sign say?

Following the complaint to the DWG Ticket#2025022210000194 and the discussion above, I've reverted this in changeset/162910810 .
To reiterate, I suspect that, based on the sources above _most_ OSM mappers (even ones like me who often map such infrastructure as part of the road) would map this as a separate cycleway.
If anyone would like to discuss this further I'd suggest doing so in a public forum such as https://community.openstreetmap.org (I can add a "lithuania" tag to any posts if so desired). Discussing there would be better than a private location or a mailing list that's had one post in 6 months.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.