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?

The access tag was not attached to any landuse entities.

The access tag was on the highway way & referred purely, and erroneously to that way.
All the edited ways are highway=footway

All the edited ways are designation=public_footpath

All the edited ways have a *legal* right for walkers to access the paths.

This changeset has improved the quality of the OSM database.

"The definitive map and public rights of way are very much an outdated legal basis"

Rubbish

"with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming and causing much fuss.

So what?

" previous survey states “they've put a private sign up”

So what?
That doesn't usurp or negate legal right of way.

" in some cases the land owners still reject even that."

So what?

"aking access=private off now means all types of vehicle may travel, "

No.
Because they're all highway=footway

The access refers to the footpath not the land it passes over.
A walker is meant to stick to the path.
Almost all rural PROWs cross private land.

From OSMWiki
access=private - "General public access is not allowed. Access is granted with individual permission only"

From Wikipedia:
"In England and Wales a public footpath is a path on which the public have a legally protected right to travel on foot"

Hi
Welcome to OSM
The footpath is not private.
Are you sure the grass pitches on Lansdown are lit?

No public transport tags are required for entities which aren't public transport.

Unsure what you mean.

Hi
node/9991604554

Miniature/Tourist railways are not public transport. Please don't add erroneous tags just because iD editor suggested it.