Hello,
What was the source of this data?
Best Regards,
Andy

I suspect that quite a few of these might need undoing from "highway=footway" to "highway=track". https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yks is a list of about 1800 that may need looking at.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Re "A footpath is a footpath regardless of width of path" - unless the imagery is severely out of date, way/48131545 should not be a "highway=footway" - it's clearly an agricultural track. It should however be a "designation=public_footpath", as it's actually also designated as a public footpath (as can be seen at e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#19/51.77162/-2.33870/H/P ).
I'd expect that the basic tagging for this would be:

highway=track
foot=yes
bridge:name=Stonepitts Bridge
surface=dirt
designation=public_footpath

If bicycle or horse access is permitted then I'd also add bicycle=permissive or horse=permissive

Best Regards,
Andy

You still haven't answered who actually uses this "data" and how they use it.

@hrhino I've hidden the silly offensive comments

> If you think anything there is wrong then re-add the fixme tags.

Thanks, I've done that.

> The fixmes didn't mention signage

I didn't mention signage because I can't imagine anyone would edit public footpaths or bridleways without actually going there and looking at signage! A "public footpath" or a "public bridleway" is inherently a legal concept that is reflected in signs along paths, tracks and roads on the ground.

See also osm.org/user_blocks/7380

Just for info, it looks like you'd accidentally disconnected way/22278279/history from the roads at either end. I've reconnected it.

> "Access to all other modes of transport other than foot is implicitly "no", " is weak as "implicitly" falls well short of "no"

No, "implicitly" here means "no, unless some other tag such as bicycle=yes is present". On e.g. the highway=footway way/23641643/history no such tag is present, so "access=no" is redundant - the sorts of traffic allowed on this footpath would be exactly the same whether or not the "access=no" tag was preent.

> ... I feel is correct as footpaths are provided only for pedestrians to access and use. I have not encountered a single source of OSM orthodoxy agreed by everyone specifying only one way to do everything to which everyone must comply. It seems we must agree to disagree on this.

No, we can discuss it together, and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/access-no-foot-designated-on-highway-footway-should-it-be-reverted/101907 would be a great place to do that. The way that you are tagging things is very unusual, but not unheard of in OSM.

The first two fixmes weren't about path connections but about public footpath and public bridleway signage. When you surveyed this, did you notice where they pointed?

The third one was just about a connecting trail on FC land that formed the third side of a triangle.

Also, the fixme for the link through the FC area at node/3599179640/history .

Also the public bridleway node/1306588297/history

Hello,
You've removed the fixme from node/1938753682/history , but where does the public footpath go from there?
Cheers,
Andy

I've re-added name:sdh (Southern Kurdish) to Kirkuk here.
A summary of the various Kurdish languages and scripts can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639_macrolanguage#kur , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorani , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmanji and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Kurdish . I don't know that the name used is correct; only that it was added by a local, albeit one with repeated misunderstandings of how OSM language tags work.

> These notes are not useless and are used by many of our partners (Ministry of transportation, transit agencies and cities).

My first thought here is "Can you link to any evidence for that, or must we just take your word for it?". Regardless of that, adding things to OSM that _literally do not exist_ is NOT what OSM is for.

Plenty of options are there for enhancing OSM's "in reality" data with other things that you'd like to be there, and the place to start with that is surely the community forum, as I linked above. If you ask there I can certainly help point to examples that combine OSM data with "imaginary" data, and update an OSM rendering database with external data directly.

To be clear we (OSM's Data Working Group) have received a complaint that this data doesn't really belong in OSM, and as far as I can see, it doesn't. If you don't revert it; we will - but I'm sure that lots of people across OSM (including me) would be more than happy to help you achieve your goals.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Just to address one point from the long comment above:

> Use by vehicles, cycles and horses is prohibited and therefore appropriately tagged = No

There is no need to do this on a highway=footway. Access to all other modes of transport other than foot is implicitly "no". Arguably it's not "wrong" to add "access=no" but that extra tag literally adds no value on a "footway" and it's a form of tagging that is certainly unusual.

Thanks, and thanks for doing https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yhK such as https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1023923130 as well.

For more information see changeset/139189031 , way/553974997 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Threecastles%20Castle .

> I can see how annoying you must find it to interfere with what you would like your map to look like.

No, that is not the issue at all. The issue is that you are removing information that other people have added to OpenStreetMap. The keys and values processed by that map style are based entirely on the keys and values present in OSM; they are a reflection of the richness of data present in OSM. If someone removes data from OSM (as you did here) any map consuming OSM data (including mine, but also including many others) will be poorer for it.

> So how about adding fortification_type=castle?

That would get us back to where we were (and was a combination in use for this sort of feature previously). However, given what we now know about the source and relation between these objects here, maybe a site relation would also make sense?

Also - (1) are you going to make this change or do I need to, and (2) what about any other similar tagged objects that you removed information from in the same time?