I usually add source=local_knowledge when using someone else’s note. Will verify also next time I pass by there.

How was it tagged incorrectly?

Seems a bit unreliable to use imagery alone to know they've gone.

It’s a disused former road route to the dam, primarily for foot traffic given the often locked gate. A style and rough surface follows further south. What was out of date was the presence of designation=public_footpath.

@DaveF: Yes, I’m serious. I’ve personally walked that route several times over the years with GPS trace as it’s marked on the ground. The council GIS is actually worse, right through the slipway and parked cars. The definitive statement is pretty useless. The definitive map roughly shows the route following the bank of the river.

This like others is problematic in future when a PRoW route changes, such that the underlying route accessibility would have been lost through this changeset (until someone surveyed again).

Either tagging form permits foot, since highway=footway has implicit foot=designated. However, the access=private was of use in understanding that a change was afoot, and a situation worth following up.

@SomeoneElse: Yes, way/992713995. Without my bringing this to people’s attention, suddenly a PRoW footpath exists through someone’s private property, such as its previous route pre-official modification. Common with such mass automated edits without careful inspection of each situation. I’ve rectified this particular one.

My case was among the 44 and an on-the-ground survey instance like most others, nothing hypothetical about it. Could have done barrier=gate with access=private and foot=designated I guess.

In my example, the construction workers and land owner can still access temporary works. The access key is general, foot a narrower overriding transport mode. There’s no issue with the two sitting together. Foot access could generally be rejected with both access=no and access=private in routing.

I’ve seen public footpaths where construction workers install tall closed fencing gates but without lock, though a black/white sign stating 'PRIVATE'. Legally they might not be able to obstruct access, so access=private captures such a case better.

I mourn the loss of information contained in those special 44 cases, highlighting where on the ground reality diverged/s from official record.

Are they really concrete asphalt though laid with hot-rolling machine? Non-road traffic is often bitmac (bitumous McAddam).

Seems to be a partly mistaken edit, was opening_hours="24/7 closed" previously. Moving to description loses that programmatic comprehension.

Defra statement: “We will repeal the 2026 cut-off date for recording historic rights of way, as set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to allow more time for paths to be identified and added to the public rights of way network, as well as providing the ‘right to apply’ for landowners to divert or extinguish rights of way in certain circumstances. These measures, along with accompanying guidance, will be implemented as soon as reasonably practical.”

Have you actually walked rights-of-way often? It seems doubtful if so that you wouldn't have encountered situations where the definitive map right of way route was blocked by buildings, walls, fencing etc and an alternate route provided by farmer, with notice publicising the fact somewhere nearby from council. In those cases, the footpath may get signed private, where the ground truth is that you'll get argued/shot at by disgruntled farmer and berated for following the outdated right of way route. Some even go through the middle of new build (as in 1980s) plots/homes.

The definitive map and public rights of way are very much an outdated legal basis, with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming and causing much fuss.

In some cases you removed the access=private where a previous survey states “they've put a private sign up”

Where highway=path, but I note a lot of your changed cases are highway=footway, tagged as primarily pedestrian traffic already.

Taking access=private off now means all types of vehicle may travel, whereas in reality only designated pedestrian per the RoW is legally required. In reality, in some cases the land owners still reject even that.