Some of it, yes.
It was deleted based on “knowledge”. I went down that route a few days later and found dozens of cairns along the way. They were strategically placed at locations where one could easily get lost. Nothing on the grassy part (the route is kinda obvious and there are no stones to use), then again a few cairns just before the cliffs. The photos have been added later (Weglose 'Wege' im Hochschwab - #16 by _MisterY). A decent section of that day’s tour can also be found on the Austrian Map.
To me, that is still a valid path but the “community” opinion seems to be that it isn’t. It is certainly more accessible and marked than some of the well-known paths that I’ve been to later, and which are mapped as paths (i.e. Pathway=* for ways not used by or intended for cars - #144 by _MisterY).
What is missing is a clear guidance on what a path is or isn’t. Every participant seems to have their own criteria of what a path is - “there is nothing on the ground”, “it needs to be known”, etc. In the end, I just added the cairns and let it be.
However, having some kind of separation between types of paths (exactly the kind of distinction that is made for roads) would be useful.
This is depicted on a legend of maps of alpine countries and listed in the “Examples from Different Maps” section at Documenting solution proposals for `highway=path`.
The sac_scale was starting to look like one solution, being the tag on which someone can rely for difficulty.