Are they not connected?

Why did you delete the road? Simply fix its geometry.

Obviously wrong.

Obviously wrong. Split and use `tunnel=building_passage`.

Are they not connected?

Are they not connected?

They are obviously on the same level.

They are obviously not stacked on each other. Fix the geometry only.

Why did you detach two connected buildings?

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, SPLIT AND USE `TUNNEL=BUILDING_PASSAGE`!!!!!!1

This is obviously wrong, the buildings are not there. Be aware of imagery distortion.

This is obviously wrong. Align the buildings and roads. If you can't, then don't.

This is obviously wrong. Split the ways and tag `building=tunnel_passage`.

This is obviously wrong. Move them to the correct place.

This is obviously wrong. It's a `tunnel=building_passage`. You should have split the way too.

This is obviously wrong. It's above, not below the podium.

Yes, GraphHopper cannot snap to bridges and tunnels. What does re-doing turn restrictions do?

I doubt the original turn restriction is correct. Can't see any double solid lines on aerial imagery.

What "routing impossibility" is happening? Also, I don't think relation/20302617 exists.

`foot=discouraged` + `foot:signed=none` + `foot:reason=crossing` is still more forgivable, as one is expected to use the crossings. This is just a road with no sidewalk though. Who discouraged against walking on a road with no sidewalk? How is this verifiable? Is `foot=discouraged` just a synonym of `sidewalk=no` then?

This situation is simply a wide sidewalk. There is nothing unique about this. One can also walk in a triangular way on any sidewalk, just less noticeable when the sidewalk is narrow. The usual way to map this is just to connect the footbridge to the centreline in the shortest way possible.

As with vehicles (roads not representing swept paths), footways represent the physical existence of a footway itself, abstracted through its centreline, not the path people walk on. Normal desire paths (e.g. walking diagonally through grass) are mapped because they are a stand-alone physical feature. This is not.

I fail to see what GPS snapping problem would be caused. And, again, as I and many others said previously, GPS is not the only use case for OSM. Don't tag for the router.