Out of an abundance of caution, I asked two communities, the OSM Community Forum, and the OSM Reddit about how to correctly tag the pathways we were discussing. Members of both communities have stated that because the pathway is within a gated community, the pathway should be labeled as private, not designated because the designated tag overrides the private tag. It appears that Spaghetti Monster's comments above fall in line with those of the other members of the OSM community. You can read each community's messages regarding this at the below links and post your feedback there as well:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-should-i-tag-a-foot-cycle-path-within-a-gated-business-complex/127153

https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/1j7iqxh/question_about_tag_on_a_cyclefoot_path_within_a/

Udarian,

So this is the problem with leaving it as designated and why I made the edit and believe it should be as I edited. On many cycling platforms, to generate cycling routes, a the platform relies on data from OSM to generate a route. I previously created a route that included the footpath at issue. When I was riding I came across the issue we are discussing where I wanted to get on the path but the path is within a complex that is guarded by a gate. Thus access to this area is private, not designated. The reason for that is the term designated as it's defined in the link I sent you refers to cycle paths, like for example the pathway along US1 for cyclists known as the Underline. That is a "designated" foot/cycle path as no heavy motor vehicles are permitted on that path.

The example we are discussing, is a pathway that is private. The only people allowed into that complex are people authorized, thus it's essentially private and the whole thing, including the roads should be tagged as that. You'll notice on the regular roads where cars drive in that area that the roads are marked as private. If the roads where the cars drive in that private complex are marked as private, then it follows that a pathway there must also be marked as private.

In your response you mention "It is designated because from what I can tell it is a pedestrian and foot path," however, have you been to the location to verify this? I encourage you to go there and speak to the guard the same way I did to ask if the pathway is "designated" for public access who cycle or walk on there, or if the pathway is actually private. This is no different than marking a pathway on a military base as private, and not designated because designated implies certain road users of the public can access it if they walk or bike on it.

Do you potentially have another solution? I'm all ears as to how to figure this out with you to ensure that the pathway is correctly marked.

Please see the definition for designated (access=designated). It suggests that while a motorist may not be permitted on the pathway, a different user (pedestrian, cyclist, skateboarder, etc.) may use the path. However, the designated definition does not apply here to begin with given that a person cannot access the path due to a guard gate preventing any user on any form of transportation to get in without permission. Accordingly, the section "Allowed Access" should not note foot or cyclist as designated, but as private for only individuals who are permitted into the area

Udarian,

I've gone by this location multiple times on my bike to double check what you are stating. They are footpaths within a larger complex that has a security gate outside it. The only way you can access the path is by being let in by a security guard. I asked him if I could enter to double check the path. He said unless I am authorized or have a pass, he will not let me in. When you set it to "designated" it implies a cyclist or pedestrian can enter and use the path which is incorrect. I believe the correct thing to do is mark it private for cycling and foot as no individual other than one who is authorized to enter on those grounds can access that path.