Re the changes to 965429633, I've had a look at the pictures. The tags that it has had can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/965429633 .

Working up the hill, it clearly has/had some legal status
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x2eFZ5sWSsKAA6CmYv9i6KWSKysEQ6hX/edit
20220404_170504.jpg
(Avis au public)

and at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nuQ_3PvAE1_D7KzSN55FWjjeP9rL5Ii/edit
20220404_170403.jpg
a bit of the old surface underneath can be seen

however at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZNDe39d7jzAXS-HhweLz5wYG3sB5ULZ/edit
20220404_170255.jpg
although the old surface can be seen,it doesn't look wide enough to be a track

Further up the hill
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X5M_fTc6o1U17qo_pVBYeqQZ69fb41Tr/edit
20220404_170240.jpg
doesn't look like much of a track any more - extra tags would surely help to better describe it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tvNQP9QXMrlU_IJNJjBA9nQBY1wm-_ih/edit
20220404_170232.jpg
doesn't look like a track any more - it just looks like a gap between the trees.

I asked 2 questions and haven't had an answer yet. They were:
"Did you have any sort of discussion where they said it was OK for you to revert it?"
and
"Re 'I warned him', how exactly did you do that?"

Here you have used "Statistics Canada Road Network File (RNF)" as a source.
osm.wiki/Canada#Importing_government_data suggests "Statistics Canada data is used to import street names where they are missing from the other data sets. It is advised to not copy the geometry; however, you can use the street names database as a reference. "
I suggest that you discuss exactly what you are doing in more detail at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca .
Best Regards,
Andy

I've asked about this licence on talk-ca . The suggestion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-April/010401.html is that "not
a suitable OSM import data license". I would suggest that you discuss the use of this licence there.
Best Regards,
Andy

You have been asked numerous times about the sources that you have used:
@PopeyePopcord/blocks and gave evasive non-answers like on changeset/119735027 . In the absence of any sensible reply (and especially as this was the second time we have been round this merry-go-round) there was no alternative to a revert,

Yearsley, from survey 9/4/2022, tr8723a

For the avoidance of doubt, what licence is "Statistics Canada Road Network File (RNF)" made available under and where can we see that?

Sorry about the globe-spanning changeset again. Most of the data revwrted here was in Canada and in West Africa, although there is other data elsewhere.

See osm.org/user_blocks/5911

If you didn't do a revert here and JOSM thinks you did, that sounds like a JOSM bug...
We (the DWG) have had other complaints recently along the lines of "this mapper has reverted my edits" when they claimed not to have done.

Also Strensall Common, from survey 11/4/2022, tr8733b

Hello,
I'd you're going to correct things like way/848939252/history (and as no information is lost here I don't see why not) it might be useful to mention to the mapper that you've done so, and why, otherwise they might make the same mistake again...
Best Regards,
Andy

As changeset/119400601 makes clear,
It is not OK to revert another user's changeset if that was made in good faith, without any sort of discussion with that user.
This changeset has tags "created_by=reverter_plugin/35893;JOSM/1.5 (18387 en)" and "source=OpenStreetMap Carto (Standard)".
Please explain, before any other edits, what you reverted, where it was discussed, and what source you actually used.

Thanks for fixing!

Following on from changeset/119209542 , "highway=path" isn't appropriate for the constituent parts of a canoe trail, either.
Something like relation/14014674 as a relation is OK. See e.g. relation/5940597 for how this is done elsewhere.
Best Regards,
Andy

:)

Hello,
Is way/296216290/history perhaps missing a main tag?
Cheers,
Andy

Congratulations at being able to get through at node/9575840094 - a landslip prevented access when I was there the day before!

Yes = "highway=footway" vs "highway=path" is more than a bit confusing..
The thing that makes something a "piblic footpath" (as shown on Ordnance Survey) maps is the "designation" tag. It's possible to create a map that shows those - https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=51.88457&lon=-3.40714 (that I made) is one such example.
On CRoW Act Access Land foot access is allowed by law but horse and bicycle isn't (although the landowner can choose to permit it) - see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities#what-people-can-do-on-your-land .
I tend to add an explicit "foot=yes" to paths across access land, to make it clear that it's more than just the permitted access that there might be in a country park.
I'd tend to use tags such as "surface" to distinguish between maintained and other paths.
I wrote a diary entry ages ago about this: @SomeoneElse/diary/391053 - that also links to things like the National Trust's suggested tags for their paths osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths#Proposed_Tagging_Schema , which in turn is pretty close to how people in England and Wales have tended to do things.
Any other questions, ask here, on the https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb mailing list, or #osm-gb on IRC osm.wiki/IRC .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
You claim to have used Bing Maps Aerial for way/1050381099 , but this building clearly isn't visible on that imagery.
What did you use as a source?
Best Regards,
Andy