Thanks, Mike. My original focus was on the track, so my change(s) on the footway(s) can be reverted. I believe I have done this (my skills in selecting particular listed ways from a changeset are not good), but if there are any I've missed, I'm happy for you to change.

Sorry, just re-read the start of your query. I'm not aware of having done that or the reasons for that - in general where I've made that change on particular ways, in the broader Suffolk area, it has been to mark tracks as access=private that are public_footpath or public_bridleway, with appropriate access permissions added in. I agree that what you've descrbed shouldn't be needed - though I'm not sure that it's wrong either, in that the land is generally private without public access except on foot.

Hi Mike. Would access=no be better? Essentially, the information is that access to the general public isn't permitted except on foot. This seems a much more elegant way of conveying the access information than listing modes of transport that aren't permitted, which is long and non-exhaustive. In the case of England & Wales, where the status of bicycles on public footpaths is disputed, it also avoids having to commit explicitly one way or the other. It's also consistent with the wiki at access=*#List_of_possible_values for "no", though I'm still unclear as to the real difference between "private" and "no".

Look forward to your thoughts.

Stephen