Hi,
Why are you changing highway=path to footway? - which is where a path is designated to pedestrians. Which doesn't really exist as such here and since they are used by mountain bikers, who are legally entitled to use them, isn't appropriate?
Thanks.

Okay. So to make sure I have the picture correctly. Is your property a 'garden' which people have some access to at certain times? Or are you a purely private property like anyone else's garden?

There are lots of service roads to properties marked on OSM, but that's beside the point.

OS hasn't removed your driveway from their mapping, I can still see it. And I doubt they would anyway. It's a valid thing to map. Anyway, this is about OpenStreetMap.

Changing things on OSM or OS is not going to stop people acting stupidly on your driveway. You need to stop them having access to it with gates or a chain.

I see your gardens are listed on VisitScotland and discoverscottishgardens.org. Have you discussed the problems you are having with them. Or contacted the local police for more practical advice.

Hi. Why have you deleted this service road/driveway?

You realise that won't help you police your property, and someone, often a local mapper will replace it. The existence of a way on OpenStreetMap does not indicate a right of access - what you can do is to mark it private with an access tag "access=private". What you shouldn't do is to delete valid data.

No that's fine. Names start somehow.

That's an interesting name, do you have a source for it?

Hi there, "knoll feature" sounds like a description not something which should be in the name field. Would you like to correct it...

Hi there,
Please don't put things like "Planned residential development" in name tags as that is inappropriate. Use a note tag if you must. You could also add construction=residential. Are the tracks you added actually on the ground?
Finally, please add a meaningful comment to your commit so other mappers can see what your intentions are.
Thanks.

You have also added a load of roads with highway=residential alongside Loch an Eilean, where none exist.
Please let me know why you have done this as it looks like vandalism.

Hi. Why have you added a railway track at Inverdruie where nothing like that exists?

Yeah, no bother. I'd maybe have gone for path if I felt like it needed updating, since that doesn't discount cycle use. But not fussed. Just wondered the rational.
Cheers.

Hi,
You changed way/241710612 from a track to a cycleway. it's not a paved cycleway it's just a rough track. So I'm wondering why?

Thanks.

Railings?! No. That is so counter to our mountain culture. We don't paint trail blazes everywhere. Where there's a real problem we'll put up cairns to guide tourists across a problematic area, like the plateau of the Ben, where tourists will try to go anyway. But similarly we don't do anything to encourage those people away from the safe area. Like putting in viewpoint symbols on our maps. The Ben is covered in cloud for the vast majority of the year with only 30 to 60 days clear. It's also covered in 6ft of snow with huge cornices above those north and NE crags, buttresses and gullies well into summer and the tourist season. So we encourage people to stick to the path and not draw them to the edges. So please don't put viewpoints everywhere. It may seem attractive, but it's not good practise in this country. Thanks.

Hi,
Looking at it, I think a tourism=viewpoint there would be somewhere I wouldn't want to encourage inexperienced people to go to. It's off the main cairned path in a relatively precarious position.
Do you have strong views about it?

Actually, no I can't. This smacks of tagging for the router. "Dont tag for the renderer" applies just as much to routing. osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer Fundamentally, map and tag what is there, not for the convenience of data users.

This is a footbridge where cyclists have to dismount, i.e cross in pedestrian mode. It is not just for cyclists. See highway=footway for appropriate tagging.
Routers should still route over 'bicycle=yes', or 'bicycle=dismount' when the main highway tag is footway, or indeed use the relation. If they don't, it is not incorrect tagging but a failure of their software.

Okay thank you for the further info. I was called away to do other things.
I can go with the NCN making it a defacto cycleway despite not looking like one.

So we can't discuss it sensibly?

Maybe that's a problem with the routing engines. It's a footbridge, and a very busy one for pedestrians. It's not a designated cycle track. It has bollards either end, low sides, as well as the dismount signs.

It also doesn't look like any of the wiki examples of a cycleway. Perhaps you can justify it to me without just shouting routing engine.

Because it's a footbridge, cyclists have to dismount, and walk over. Perhaps it should have a cycleway tag?

A permissive path is where the land owner has allowed access where no other rights exist - like in England. That's not the case here. We have a default legal right of access. So no, it is not appropriate either.

OSM is all about what is on the ground. You do not have to say what something's legal status is.

I would not add any access tag at all.