Legally, cyclists are allowed on sidewalks as an exception, not the rule. Bicycles are to use cycling infrastructure or roads. In other words, in Latvia on sidewalks, it's `bicycle=no` (like most countries). Now, the exceptions to use sidewalks in Latvia are very broad - traffic, weather, obstacles, etc. And enforcement is non-existent. Plus, it's culturally so embedded that bicycles use sidewalks that hardly anyone even knows the actual traffic laws. So to compromise, we don't actually put `bicycle=no` on sidewalks, we just leave it with the default value and let routers (profiles) decide if they want to follow the letter of the law or be more loose with restrictions (which most do). But putting `bicycle=yes` implies that it's no longer the default restrictive traffic rules, but bikes are specifically explicitly allowed by some sign or something. That's just not the case for 99% of sidewalks and is incorrect data.

But I guess that's the problem with incomplete car-centric routers, isn't it. Do we map for the routers or do we map the actual restrictions? Because if we choose to map for the routers, then we need to add `bicycle=yes` to every sidewalk across the entire Latvia. Because we can't just subjectively cherry-pick some of them to "fix" routing for specific routers in specific locations. This would fail OSM subjectivity and verifiability principles. And we would be doing something weird just for Latvia. Other countries that have similar traffic laws don't do this (as far as I know).

Your example is a great example of what happens with automated programs when cycling infrastructure in Latvia sucks, while laws do not represent reality. So, legally, you should attempt to cycle on the road here and if that's dangerous or impossible, only then use the sidewalk and then cycle at slow speeds, give way to all pedestrians (which frankly are here always), slow at intersections, etc. Is this stupid and should this logically be at least a shared cycleway? Sure. But that's how it's legally defined and that's how any accidents here will be treated. So, yes, I call `bicycle=yes` "bogus" and that's putting it mildly, because it's legally `bicycle=no` with a long list of exceptions here regardless how people actually use it.

Are current laws stupid? Yes. Is infrastructure bad? Yes. Are router profiles poor? Yes. But I don't think the solution is to massage OSM data to fit them for something so broad. I can understand some exceptions in some cases. But here we are talking "sidewalks" as a concept throughout all of Latvia. I personally generally describe sidewalks in Latvia akin to `bicycle=permissive` in practice and I would agree to make this a country-level default access for routers even if it's not technically correct. If I recall right, I mentioned this before although we never got around to finishing the country defaults table.

Now, all that said, if multiple mappers discuss, argument and agree to mark certain road segments like this with `bicycle=yes`, then that's fine by me. But this *has* to be discussed and recorded, we can't just have everyone individually tagging subjectively to improve their favourite router.