This is an ongoing task of the government and the legislature: not only to ask how the pandemic can be combated most effectively, but also to check at any time whether restrictive measures really need to be maintained.
The mask requirement, although by far not the most serious encroachment on fundamental rights, has always been particularly criticized, not least because it was seen as symbolic by both opponents and supporters.
In the open air it is particularly controversial and needs justification, as the risk of infection is lower there.
However, the currently positive development of the pandemic should not induce one to abandon all protective measures. Anyone who recently warned that we were still in the middle of the pandemic and that it could soon get worse again, even in the face of threatening mutants, cannot suddenly call out the old normality across the board. Full interiors, including in means of transport, are still a source of danger.
Of course, if you can largely exclude hazards in other ways, then the mask requirement must also be dropped. Anyone who, for example, lets students who have been tested, are not particularly at risk and already beaten enough, play sports with a mask, is more a specialist in physical harm than in fighting pandemics. The ongoing task of constantly checking all measures also includes the obligation to act according to the situation - and with a sense of proportion.