Hi
Please us ref instead of hole number
golf=hole

Hi
To check, do you recall if this path was signed as a public footpath?
way/562081434/history

It's shown as a PROW on the council's data, but I seem to remember the signs & gates going along this route:
way/370727134#map=17/51.43223/-2.31142

@PinkDuck
You said "I’ve personally walked that route several times"
This, again, is more irrelevance.
You said "What was out of date was the presence of designation=public_footpath", and yet you didn't remove it, instead adding access=private believing it overwrote the designation tag. It does not. And tried to blame me for it. You can't.

@SomeoneElse
This changeset is in no requirement of "help".
It needs contributors to comprehend the meaning of the access tag.
You've fallen into the same trap as the BBC in assuming there are always two equal sides to each discussion which deserve equal consideration. Failing to understand a subject is not a valid argument.
To quote Douglas Adams:
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others"

I take note of your ad hominem attack for future reference.

There's been criticism from someone who, in the very next sentence, confessed to not comprehending what they're talking about, as well as Pink Duck's whataboutery, attempting to pass the responsibility for his poor mapping onto others. Explain why these actions shouldn't be described as harassment?

It's concerning how much erroneous data may have been added to the database given the clear lack of understanding.

@DaveD
If you mean: way/223403981/history
Then no, My changeset didn't introduced any error. The incorrect designation was added in a previous amendment. Removing an access tag doesn't change the meaning or implication of the designation tag.

@Pink Duck
The official record /is/ reality.

"construction workers" (actually the developers) can apply for a TTRO suspension of access rights. Access=no is the correct adjective tag in that instance.

------
For clarity the 44 amendments are the total number of ways, not the number of different footpaths.
Check how many footpaths without an access=private tag cross private land in order to assess how little effect this changeset has.

> Yes, way/992713995.

Are you serious?
/You/ created the way with inaccurate tags.
The way was flawed before my changeset because the access tag does not usurp a designation tag.
It was still flawed after. The changeset made no difference to the error.
The changeset has brought to your attention your error & allowed you to now amend. You may thank me.

Given the parked cars, the track with wheel marks & the boat trailers I believe it's inaccurate to tag those ways a footways.

Is this intended to be the final layout?
osm.org/edit?editor=id#map=19/51.08835/-1.16358

Hang on, I'm still awaiting response from the person who added this duplicating irrelevant tag which no one else uses. You haven't proved it serves any purpose.

Hi
If the gate is on a PROW, how can access be private?
node/10009460327

Please don't remove valid data to 'map incorrectly to suit the router'
There's an irony in you splitting a fence to indicate the full width of a pedestrian entrance yet deleting that pedestrian area indicate the width.

Hi
Is it a replacement for this one:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3804689,-2.3621736,3a,75y,218.9h,62.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv-LobZhpnTlO5n-HPlhwfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The main protagonist last edited 7 years ago. In my experience they either fail to reply or say they can't remember.
There are a total of 24 examples left world wide.

Hi
Could you clarify what the 'physical' key represents?

way/306273973/history

Hi
way/4694412/history

Could you clarify what the 'physical' key represents?

Hi
Could you clarify what the 'physical' key represents?
way/477042500/history

Unsure, as they're mainly old edits & there's no wiki info. Appears to be mostly symbiotic with highway=* tags.
Would reintroducing the tag add benefit to the OSM database?

Both of the above comments are, again, irrelevant deflections which I've already countered.

If this was a relevant tag there'd be more than 44 examples & something in the wiki.

"with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming"

No.
It's been scrapped.

Again, all the ways were highway=footway. A *single* transport mode way. No other transport modes can use it. They were all designated as public footpaths (as clearly stated in the changeset comment). That means they have a *legal* right of access. Therefore there is no requirement for an access tag.

What's rude is that you haven't looked at the original tags, the amendments made & the wiki, even though I've quoted the relevant sections.

You still haven't structured your comment well.
You say you "understand the changes were not in relation to landuse features" then in the same sentence mention a footway "is on a private patch of land,"!

You then go on to agree with me that it's a PROW!

The maintainer of the paths is completely irrelevant.

I agree with you that "access=private does not stipulate that access is purely permissive (access=permissive).", but, again, that's irrelevant to this changeset. The legal access rights to walk on a PROW is neither private or permissive as PROWs are legally open to the general public & the owner of the land can not revoke the legal right.

This changeset does not span "a large area". It was intentionally restricted to England. It was intentionally designed to amend just one tag on one specific object. It doesn't cross borders, it doesn't sail across oceans, it doesn't jump continents.

"I am not sure what I am trying to say myself"
Then maybe it would be best if you didn't say it?