Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! What exactly is the new line that you've drawn:

way/343733489

It seems to almost but not quite enclose an area of Oxford - but what actually is it and what are you trying to do with it?

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! What's the name of the park at way/343206721 ? If it's got a real name, then by all means use it rather than just "name=Park"; if it doesn't have a name you don't have to give it one - the various things that display OpenStreetMap data (such as the five different web maps on this site, people's GPS devices and phones, etc.) can decide how to display it and don't need a description of the feature in the name.

Re GPS traces, I'd upload them to OSM so that they're visible here and can be linked to, like @SomeoneElse/traces/1909067

Re the "bike park" what exactly is it? I've tagged an MTB area to the west as way/270878792 , maybe that would work?

Odd - I had a quick look as I was driving past tonight and the ends of way/61431770 and way/61431775 at the ring road are clearly tracks rather than bridleways. Looking at the photos, I suspect that neither are taken on these ways - http://imgur.com/uHFsXfE looks like it is section to the northwest - the eastern end of way/39325177 and http://imgur.com/zYWOCvq is perhaps further round to the northwest?

Hi - are both of the footpaths in here part of the "Leeds Country Way"? If so they can be added to relation/5012105 (which I've created based on various identifiable remnants) around Leeds.

Hi, if you want to perform import tests may I suggest that you use the dev api instead http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ ?

I'd hope that any car thinking about using it would look at the access tags and not have a problem!

At that link I read "it is now possible for councils to request exemptions to OS's IP claims on data they have plotted on top of OS's base maps" (but I don't see any evidence that that has happened) and then "Unfortunately, it appears that Ordnance Survey's rights in the data will prevent any use in OSM for the time being". Can you explain why you think that York's data is not encumbered in any way and can be used in OSM?

Evidently! The bit north of the ring road way/61431775 is/was used as farm access. Is it no longer? The southern bit (that runs into Hopgrove way/129550281/history ) I do remember as being less wide, but I didn't map that bit. The bit in the middle must have deteriorated in the last 5 years.

"It's passable by a motor vehicle" (if four-wheeled) implies at least highway=track. "But the problem is that the route is not publicly accessible to motor vehicles" implies access=private, or motor_vehicle=no, or similar.

"highway" describes what the thing is physically like (along with tags such as surface and width etc.); access tags such as access, foot, horse describe who's allowed to use it, and the legal status is covered by e.g. designation=public_bridleway.

I personally would never use data from a third-party site that claims that data has been released to them under a certain licence, without any evidence that that is the case. How do we know what questions were asked? It _might_ be perfectly OK, but without knowing what questions were asked (and how the data being distributed was obtained - e.g.did york use an OS basemap in such a way that they simply can't release the data as OGL?) we simply don't know.

Again, I strongly suggest that you ask on talk-gb before trying to use this data. People there have been through these questions many, many times before.

What's the evidence for way/340889490 being a service road? It always used to be a gravel track. It seems odd that it's been upgraded, when it's only used for field access when the track from Strensall Road to Earswick Grange hasn't been. Also, what's your source for saying that way/148527483/history no longer joins to the track that goes past Nova Scotia?

Similarly to the other changeset, you've changed Bad Bargain Lane (part of which is way/61432262/history ) from a track to a bridleway. It was definitely a track when I was last there, and is used for farm access. I can't believe that it is not accessible by four wheeled vehicles.

Are you sure that way/61431770/history is no longer a track? Last time I walked down it it definitely was. You've changed it to a "highway=bridleway". What I suspect that you meant to do was to leave it as a "highway=track" but change it to "designation=public_bridleway" (a tag that wasn't in common use when I mapped it in 2010).

way/343442814 needs a survey, I think, to see how it interacts with the track. Where are there public footpath signs on it?

way/61432260 I suspect was marked as a public footpath at the west end (I added it with a "fixme longer than this" donkey's years ago) but it could do with rechecking.

How do I get to this OGL 3 data without going through a website that claims to be "© 2012 Esri (UK) Ltd and its third party licensors. All rights reserved."* or displaying it on a map is apparently "© Crown copyright and database right 2015 Ordnance Survey 100020818"?

Also note re Bing that only the Bing imagery available within the OSM editors can be used - I suspect that what ypu're referring to as "birds-eye view" isn't, and can't.

*though how ESRI can claim copyright on all York's data I'm not sure.

Perhaps it's worth asking on talk-gb? There are people there with far more knowledge of licensing than me. There's a previous thread about it here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-June/thread.html#14915 .

It doesn't matter if "the Local Authority's definite map is a public document and the data contained within it is public data" - if it's derived from non-licence-compatible data it can't be used in OSM. However, it's likely that the definitive _statement_ may not be so encumbered. If you can get hold of that you might have enough information to update OSM with, based on what's visible from Bing and on the ground. Alternatively you could have a look at osm.wiki/UK_local_councils - the steps outlined there explain how to get the council to release data in a form that can be used. There's no indication on that page that York have been contacted and the right questions asked.
Although people do add footpaths just from imagery, personally I'd actually walk a path before adding it to OSM. That way you can add more details, like can you actually walk along it (regardless of legal status!), barriers / gates and fences / hedges, surface, "designation" tags (e.g. "public_footpath") etc.

@NewBrownRice - you mustn't use that map as a source. There is a very clear copyright statement at the bottom of it. If this is your only source these paths will have to be removed.

I would only add footpaths that you personally have surveyed (by walking all the way along). I'd be genuinely surprised if the footpath really does cross the A64 (armco gap notwithstanding). Where footpaths cross the A14 there are clear "beware of pedestrians" signs. I'm not aware of any near Murton and drive the road regularly. However, it's not long until the next Bank Holiday and I'm sure the Scarborough traffic will back up this far south then allowing you to check :)

Note that there's an argument for "name" to match "name:sr" rather than "name:sq" on relation/1332173 . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kosovo_ethnic_2005.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo .