Rick
In your comments you mention 'the system' and 'we'. Please coul you be more specific?

These comments suggest that you should be following osm.wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

There is nothing in your profile suggeting you are anything other than a hobby mapper.

Cheers Phil

Hi Dave
The specific problem was caused by way/329362014
The usual tag for footway which is a public right of way is desgnated in England and Wales, but OSM is an international project so we cannot simply assume this to be the worldwide view.

Also many footpaths, will be =yes, particularly those in urban areas.
The specic problems with this change were the removal of tags from bridleways.

The size of this edit, you changed 699 ways, suggests you could not possibly have looked at them all and this edit would have fallen under the automated editing policy and should have been discussed with the community
See osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Cheers Phil

Hi Dave
In the case of footways the implied tag is yes, meaning it is allowed. You also removed designated which means it is a legal right of way. This is important for many mappers to be able to see in the database.
You also removed access tags from bridleways, which is a bit of a GB centric idea. Many routers will not allow foot or bicycle access unless explicitly tagged. Your changes came to our attention due to failing to route a walker along a bridleway which you had removed the access tags from.
If you need further clarification please ask.

Cheers Phil

There is an exiting rights of way network mapped in this area. As I can find diversion orders for these then I can only assume they still exist.

Therefore there should be connecting nodes where your new highway=construction crosses them.

Your editor should have given you warnings of crossing ways.

Cheers Phil

See also comments made in changeset/76133401

Please respond to changeset comments before you keep changing tags which may break the database for other users.

You appear to be engaged in an edit war.

If you believe the tagging is incorrect then please discuss it with the community.

Some of your comment, such as the system imply you are working for someone and are covered by a directed editing policy, your user description should cover this.

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

The name you have added to the building is unnecessary and could cause confusion

The name Boreton Park is already on the outline of the grounds, making this name a duplication, I am also not sure that it is called PGL Children's Residential Trips, is it really only for children?

Cheers Phil

Hi
Just wondering why you have changed these tracks to footways, are they now narrower than when they were originally surveyed?
Also if they are no longer tracks, then track associated tags such as tracktype, motor_vehicle etc no longer make sense.

If you have any questions or need any help then please feel free to ask.

Cheers Phil
Ch

Hi, whilst changing objects mapped as nodes to building ways is a good thing to do. Please be careful not to create duplications such as leaving the existing node in place.
Cheers Phil

Also highway=bridleway is a very UK specific term, which many routers do not understand.
Removing access tags from bridleways has resulted in these being bypassed by foot/bicycle routers.

Hi, what is the source you are using to tag these legal restrictions?

There are only two such legal restrictions visible on bing streetside?

Maybe there should be only two relations?

Cheers Phil

I would agree with gurglypipe, a bridleway should be tagged as foot/horse=designated.

For some reason the correct tagging was removed as unecessary in changeset/65891774

The tag vehicle=no is also a bit misleading, it should be motor_vehicle=no, a bicycle is legally a vehicle and allowed to use a bridleway.

And please add meaningful changeset comments that give other mappers an idea of what you are trying to achieve. Hashtags are meaningless as primary comments. Aviva is an insurance company.

Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

When editing please take care and observe existing features. Here you have crossed an existing right of way withou connecting them.

Cheers Phil

Hi, should these highway=construction have some sort of node connecting them to the existing rights of way network?

Cheers Phil

Hi, what evidence do you have to suggest that this is no longer a track?

Cheers Phil

Thank you

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Has this building been demolished?

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

Just wondering why you have removed this driveway, which is verifiable on the ground and was added to improve deliveries to those premises?

Cheers Phil

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In OSM we add things that exist and are verifiable on the ground. There is certainly not a weird shaped building in the quarry.

This is vandalism and certainly should receive no credit as part of a uni project.

I am reverting this edit.