wrong road class
way/5410157/history#map=19/34.770681/32.422922&layers=N

also node/5761548494

"name" is not needed for natural=coastline & boundaries that are members of a named relation

access actually requires a an access permit, so i guess "private" suits better here

yes intentional
sorry cannot split in the app by location

https://revert.osmz.ru/12281

road does not exist.
reverted in changeset/179885366

Dog park is not visible on the aerial. Is it a correct location?

node/13453499686

Road classifications is incorrect. Changeset is reverted in 179677918

relation not needed. simple building-part outlines is enough

corrected

node/12367229636/history#map=19/34.687923/33.043493&layers=N

note/5149863

Is "supermarket" really a part of the name?

It seems like "shop=supermaket" is already describes this.

node/11917308908/

should be highway=crossing

This node was placed incorrectly and was removed

node/12025531895

Seems to be incorrect

Hello eufive!

Thank you for your detailed response.

We are not mapping specifically for renderers or routers, so that shouldn’t be the main focus here.

I agree that publicly accessible areas are indeed tourism attractions, and it makes sense to tag them accordingly.

Regarding residential versus pedestrian classification: I guess most of the area isn't currently occupied by residents and is mainly accessible on foot or by bicycle, but not by motor vehicles. In that case, marking those areas as highway=pedestrian seems appropriate.

However, I would suggest keeping highway=residential for areas where motor vehicle access is allowed, even if only by permit.

note/4699672

Marked as unclassified & updated surfaces of roads in the area based on aerial

Yes, these are residential.

There are some categories vehicles that can access those streets

TotG applies.

not a highway=living_street

node/12876824074