Hi, n76. The meeting ended up mostly being folks from US federal agencies talking about their experiences with visitors taking OSM-derived maps as gospel. The notes from the meeting have been posted here. There was some discussion of what to do next, with the conclusion that there need to be more meetings.

Hi, kucai. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say, but the closest analogue from this list of categories to the situation you brought up is “paths that exist and are only to be used by the landowner and guests”. Service roads that are closed to the general public are usually tagged as highway=service + access=private.

Minh, for the case of paths that exist but should not exist according to the landowner, I’m talking about paths that the landowner explicitly does not allow people to go on and wishes didn’t exist, but the community does not respect the landowner’s wishes. The mountain biking community is famous for creating these paths, and they’re quite active in copying them to OSM. I think informal is the highway equivalent of disputed. Mainly I feel like it’s weird to “dispute” something that you can see with your eyes. I have come across some cases where the existence of a public right of way or ownership of a path is actually disputed (as in, currently working its way through the courts). It’d be worthwhile to have a way to tag that, but it’d have to be tied back to the access, since that’s what’s disputed. Maybe something like access:disputed=yes.

But for the case of remote mappers tracing phantom paths, the not:highway lifecycle tag sounds like a great fit!