Thank you for taking time and writing up this detailed explanation, really appreciate it! This really gives an excellent insight into motivation behind the changeset. It is also good to know that we are on the same page regarding the quality of cycling infrastructure and consistency of the traffic law in Latvia.

I am regularly mapping for the router and I am not ashamed of it. For me "How do I get to X?" is the second most frequent use case of OSM after the obvious "Where is X located?" And I think that cycling routing is especially important given the state of cycling infrastructure here - you definitely need a bit of help from the tireless silicon brain to find that shortcut that can shave 1 or 2 km off your daily commute.

I also have to point out that it's not just "my favourite router", all three routing engines currently available on osm.org lead cyclist onto grass(!) and through parking lots/service roads to avoid that cursed sidewalk.

I am not trying to start a revolution here. If the trend is to get rid of "bicycle=yes" and pursue routers to have a custom profile for Latvia I am all for it. I am just sad that the former was done without the latter, in my opinion it makes the matter worse short-term. If you genuinely believe that the traffic law requires (ignoring the exceptions) cyclists to drop to the road at the end of the designated cycling path at this place, then we should probably add a line connecting end of the cycleway to the road over the curb - this would allow routers to lead cyclsts following the letter of the law.