I think you're right that "surface" is the key word here, as that's what your feet/wheels interact with and what ultimately determines whether the suitability of the bridge for travel (it's also the only thing that's trivially verifiable, we don't want to have to start taking core samples of random roads!). In this bridges case, there's an asphalt/tarmac layer across it's whole length: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6512139

The surfaces added in this change were incorrect. The tunnel is paved throughout, and I have updated to data to reflect this.

Be careful tagging surfaces on enclosed spaces from just satellite imagery!

Fair enough! I didn't realise the closure was as brief as that, it looked more substantial when I rode through it.

I'm not sure, sorry! I only spotted the footpath I mapped when I walked past it along the riverside path.

BIG UPDATE.

I decided to just email the Elveden Estate office about this, and they confirmed that the closure is just for motor vehicles :) I've uploaded screenshots of the whole exchange below:

Part 1: https://i.imgur.com/YnbvbC4.jpeg
Part 2: https://i.imgur.com/qYWlIYd.jpeg
Part 3: https://i.imgur.com/EqZ9itd.jpeg
Part 4: https://i.imgur.com/hXFgGrj.jpeg

Hopefully you can still get the council to clarify the wording on their website, but as far as OSM is concerned I think this settles this issue :)

Yeah, that's absolutely fine. Good luck with the MP!

Do we know who owns this land? If the way is (temporarily) no longer a legal PRoW, it's still "permissive" for a given mode of transport if the landowner still allows passage, which the gate and signage situation seems to suggest.

I do agree with you that it's pretty outrageous what the council have done here, it sets a terrible precedent for landowners to "temporaily" close PRoW's they don't like on spurious grounds.

That's interesting. Seems like a discrepancy between the "official" truth and the "on the ground" reality.

I was looking through my photos from the trip, and just by chance, one of my photos happens to capture the gate situation!

If you look at the far left of this image, you can see that the vehicle gate is padlocked, but the pedestrian/bike gate is accessible:
https://imgur.com/Q6eTHjt

If the council confirms that the PRoW is indeed suspended for walkers/cyclists, perhaps the compromise to capture the reality would be to change the foot/bicycle tags on the way from "designated" to "permissive"?

Heya,
I cycled Wolf Way from the War Memorial to Icklington as part of my ride, and from my observation it only seemed to be closed to Motor Vehicles (The large vehicle gate was padlocked shut, but the pedestrian/cyclist gate was perfectly usable. There were no signs either way, and I met a few walkers on my ride and didn't get any indication we weren't supposed to be there), therefore, I changed "motor_vehicle=designated" to "motor_vehicle=no". I removed the "access" tag as it was redundant, having been overridden for all vehicle types.

Definitely I intended "no"!
Sometimes I will press "c" to combine ways in the online editor (or other shortcut keys), but the textbox has focus so this will happen by mistake. Thanks you for spotting it. I will fix tonight

What is your source for Redmere Drove being passable on foot or bycycle? It's not on any Public Right of Way maps, and the property seems to have "PRIVATE PROPERTY KEEP OUT" signs posted.