Agreed. Looks like you retained my change to remove the name from the part inside the gates though which is good. Seems fairly obvious from the layout that the original Rivers Road would run along the now-grassed footpath, not via The Towers.

No, I had the crossing types confused, believe it is only pedestrian

Yes, updated

It didn't close as such, but seems to have undergone a bit of a transformation (first new stock, now new signs). Possibly to get around lockdown restrictions by selling essentials...

Presumably updates are somehow documented when changes are legally made though, even if the original is old?

I added the kissing gate in.

Looks like a fairly old document from B&NES (what even is "Ensleigh Road" now?)

Regardless of the actual legalities it's fairly apparent that walkers are "supposed" to stay North of the wall and it's a perfectly decent path.So a question of OSM policy rather than pragmatism, as to whether the change should stand or be reverted.

By the way, I vaguely remember a kissing gate rather than just a gap in the fence at osm.org/?mlat=51.40933&mlon=-2.37522#map=19/51.40933/-2.37522 but I may be misremembering/making that up. Did you encounter one?

Looks like Kingswood rather than B&NES signs.
I agree that the path is shown South of the wall in these other data sources, but they also show the same path inside the boundary of what was the MoD playing field as it runs to the East. This is clearly not presently the case (the OSM positioning seems correct to me), so perhaps there is a lack of precision at that scale or update required to the other sources.

Kingswood school have posted many signs to this effect around the area, including on the stile you mentioned, which I didn't remove but detached from the footpath.

Rather different looking kinds of gate IMO, with the western one certainly more indicative of public access, but it is all subjective in the absence of signs.

OK I concede it is NT land and so can be treated as implicitly public along with its paths. However, the track off Bathwick Hill looked like a private driveway to me, complete with gate.

That's at odds with what I read on access=* - perhaps permissive is the appropriate choice in this case. I see you have reverted now anyhow so will leave it to you.

My point was it's not officially a public right of way. What would you consider to be better tagging to reflect that?

Ah yes, I have removed the tag.

Hm yes, temporary tent or something that I overzealously traced from Bing. Reverted.

Hmm, the access across the paved area is hardly a road but I concede your point and will join them back up :)

I won't revert the road alongside 4ES to being a parking aisle, however.

Not sure what you mean by the fence and verge "separating" them, but then I did not see it before. Certainly it is now an open and working junction.