text: Not sure what you are trying to say with this note anttit. That is, it's not marked as a path currently but a cycleway with foot=designated .. which to me seems in a way slightly odd -- I'd personally rather think that highway=path + bicycle=yes would be the same but more appropriate with the foot=designated. .. But I'm really not well versed to how things are tagged in Finland so I'm not suggesting what this kind of path/track should be ideally tagged with (in Finland). ... You additionally comment in another note 200 meters NW from this note that "the ways are similar gravel paths as other built paths in Keskuspuisto). This confuses me slightly more for the part of this note.
  .. Now, as my personal "touch and feel" (MuTu) thought about the classification I'd add that in a slightly broader view I think that for the paths in Keskuspuisto any of the following would be more than less fine: 1) highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=yes or 2) highway=footway + foot=designated + bicycle=yes or 3) (the current) highway=cycleway + foot=designated + bicycle=yes (even though for this I'm having slight troubles understanding why use =cycleway when it's also foot=designated -- rendering?) . And IMO highway=track would not be right as while they have the physical characteristics of a track -- or even a residential or even unclassified roads they are off limits for motorized vehicles.
  Just my two cents.
  
  Would you mind clarifying what you meant with these two notes so they can be resolved?