piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-12 07:57:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/298078364/history

have you intentionally used surface=fine_sand distinct from typical surface=sand?

Would it be fine to use just surface=sand?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dsand
Pink Duck (2022-09-05 14:52:07+00:00): That seems very unhelpful. Public footpaths do cross private land. That they do does not make the land public, only the route of the public footpath itself. Hence foot=designated overriding access=private.
DaveF (2022-09-05 15:19:07+00:00): The access refers to the footpath not the land it passes over. 
A walker is meant to stick to the path.
Almost all rural PROWs cross private land.

From OSMWiki
access=private - "General public access is not allowed. Access is granted with individual permission only" 

From Wikipedia:
"In England and Wales a public footpath is a path on which the public have a legally protected right to travel on foot"
Pink Duck (2022-09-05 15:22:12+00:00): Taking access=private off now means all types of vehicle may travel, whereas in reality only designated pedestrian per the RoW is legally required. In reality, in some cases the land owners still reject even that.
Pink Duck (2022-09-05 15:24:22+00:00): Where highway=path, but I note a lot of your changed cases are highway=footway, tagged as primarily pedestrian traffic already.
Pink Duck (2022-09-05 15:25:24+00:00): In some cases you removed the access=private where a previous survey states “they've put a private sign up”
Pink Duck (2022-09-05 15:26:31+00:00): The definitive map and public rights of way are very much an outdated legal basis, with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming and causing much fuss.
DaveF (2022-09-05 16:10:52+00:00): "aking access=private off now means all types of vehicle may travel, "

No.
Because they're all highway=footway
DaveF (2022-09-05 16:11:22+00:00): " in some cases the land owners still reject even that."

So what?
DaveF (2022-09-05 17:51:30+00:00): " previous survey states “they've put a private sign up”

So what? 
That doesn't usurp or negate legal right of way.
DaveF (2022-09-05 17:53:26+00:00): "The definitive map and public rights of way are very much an outdated legal basis"

Rubbish

"with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming and causing much fuss.

So what?
yasslay (2022-09-05 18:42:50+00:00): Hello!

I was looking at the history and changesets and I stumbled upon this, and wanted to share my two pennies (or cents?) on the matter.

I agree with what Pink Duck has said. I think that the access=private tags should be retained. To my knowledge, a private tag does not state that no one can use it unless permitted, and in the latter access=permissive is used instead. I think this is more of a case of a private group of people owning land of which a public right of way is situated and giving the access=private tagging, which I think is appropiate.

I hope this helps!

Kind regards,
yasslay
DaveF (2022-09-05 19:47:10+00:00): The access tag was not attached to any landuse entities.

The access tag was on the highway way & referred purely, and erroneously to that way.
All the edited ways are highway=footway

All the edited ways are designation=public_footpath

All the edited ways have a *legal* right for walkers to access the paths.

This changeset has improved the quality of the OSM database.
yasslay (2022-09-05 20:01:35+00:00): Hello!

I apologise, I believe I may have not structured my comment well.

I understand the changes were not in relation to landuse features however the public right of way on this farm for example (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054074314) is on a private patch of land, however it is still a public right of way and is maintained by the owners of the farm. I am not sure what I am trying to say myself, but I hope you get what I'm saying! Also, access=private does not stipulate that access is purely permissive (access=permissive).

Also, please avoid the arrogant mindset "This changeset has improved the quality of the OSM database." and it's kind of rude, thank you.

Also, this changeset spans quite a large area and involves a lot of ways from different regions in the UK, (e.g. this spans from south to north England) was this mechanical edit discussed beforehand?

Kind regards,
Yasslay
DaveF (2022-09-05 22:46:27+00:00): What's rude is that you haven't looked at the original tags, the amendments made & the wiki, even though I've quoted the relevant sections.

You still haven't structured your comment well. 
You say you "understand the changes were not in relation to landuse features" then in the same sentence mention a footway "is on a private patch of land,"!  

You then go on to agree with me that it's a PROW!

The maintainer of the paths is completely irrelevant.

I agree with you that "access=private does not stipulate that access is purely permissive (access=permissive).", but, again, that's irrelevant to this changeset. The legal access rights to walk on a PROW is neither private or permissive as PROWs are legally open to the general public & the owner of the land can not revoke the legal right.

This changeset does not span "a large area". It was intentionally restricted to England. It was intentionally designed to amend just one tag on one specific object. It doesn't cross borders, it doesn't sail across oceans, it doesn't jump continents.

"I am not sure what I am trying to say myself"
Then maybe it would be best if you didn't say it?
yasslay (2022-09-06 07:03:01+00:00): Hello!

I apologise for how mistaken I was on the matter, please forgive me. However, I would like to note that you removed the base access tagging from the public rights of way rather than changing it to access=yes when you removed the access=private tagging.

Kind regards,
yasslay
DaveF (2022-09-06 12:53:28+00:00): Again, all the ways were highway=footway. A *single* transport mode way. No other transport modes can use it. They were all designated as public footpaths (as clearly stated in the changeset comment). That means they have a *legal* right of access. Therefore there is no requirement for an access tag.
DaveF (2022-09-06 12:59:17+00:00): "with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming"

No.
It's been scrapped.
Pink Duck (2022-09-06 13:00:42+00:00): Have you actually walked rights-of-way often? It seems doubtful if so that you wouldn't have encountered situations where the definitive map right of way route was blocked by buildings, walls, fencing etc and an alternate route provided by farmer, with notice publicising the fact somewhere nearby from council. In those cases, the footpath may get signed private, where the ground truth is that you'll get argued/shot at by disgruntled farmer and berated for following the outdated right of way route. Some even go through the middle of new build (as in 1980s) plots/homes.
Pink Duck (2022-09-06 13:02:12+00:00): Defra statement: “We will repeal the 2026 cut-off date for recording historic rights of way, as set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to allow more time for paths to be identified and added to the public rights of way network, as well as providing the ‘right to apply’ for landowners to divert or extinguish rights of way in certain circumstances. These measures, along with accompanying guidance, will be implemented as soon as reasonably practical.”
DaveF (2022-09-06 14:14:58+00:00): Both of the above comments are, again, irrelevant deflections which I've already countered. 

If this was a relevant tag there'd be more than 44 examples & something in the wiki.
sarukwa (2022-09-08 18:00:35+00:00): I only have 3 years experience as a PROW walker. I have a basic understanding of the laws.
At first i was not sure about this changeset, but after thinking about it for a couple of days, and after reading https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Further_guidance_on_tagging_Public_Rights_of_Way_in_the_United_Kingdom my current opinion is that this changeset is correct, and that it is also correct to apply it without investigating the individual circumstances.
All of DaveF's points above seem correct to me.
Just wanted to express support so that this changeset does not appear as being 'opposed by everyone'.
kevjs1982 (2022-09-09 08:40:38+00:00): I've been "made aware" of this commit and got to say I agree with DaveF - the access tags refer to the paths themselves and not the land they go over.  

Looking at the Wiki it seems that *=designated is to limit a path to only these forms of transport, where as "access" is for whom is allowed to use a way, i.e. the access would override them (e.g. close during long-term construction works, or only usable by people heading to a destination).

highway=footway would be sufficient to limit use to only foot traffic.

AFAICT we should be tagging the landuse (or similar) with the access=private, but not doing so on the footpaths.
DaveD (2022-09-09 09:51:27+00:00): Another experienced walker agreeing with DaveF. By definition, designation=public_footpath and access=private should never coincide on the same way. If a PROW has been blocked or closed (legally or illegally) but not extinguished then it should (IMO) be set to access=no and dealt with in a note.
ohmanger (2022-09-09 09:56:19+00:00): This has highlighted one way that is (was?) a PROW but is now redirected (https://osm.org/way/223403981). I have removed the designation tag and remarked private. If I get time I'll go down and review the other ways affected.

Whilst I think I agree with the sentiment of this changeset persistently doing so in such a heavy handed way is wrong. More time should be put into actually looking at what you're changing.

Reading kevjs1982's comment is interesting as it is quite common locally to assume the *=designated tag takes priority over the access one so you end up with tracks tagged as access=private+foot=designated which imo is much more concise but I gather would be an issue for some people.
DaveD (2022-09-09 10:43:55+00:00): Fair comment from ohmanger - in this case the impact of the global change was negative - an unavailable route became marked as available.

On reflection, it would have been better to have looked at each case individually and removed "foot=designated" or "access=private" selectively. While the two tags are mutually exclusive, there's no obvious way of knowing which needs to be removed or altered.
John Stanworth (2022-09-12 07:37:41+00:00): As an experienced walker and mapper of footpaths I would like to make a utilitarian point. In my area and perhaps all over the country access=private/no/unknown tags on public footpaths are not uncommon and cause problems for all the different routing apps used by walkers and runners - they won’t route down these paths. Decisions about mass edits must be made by people who understand the philosophy of OSM better than me but this edit would probably correct thousands of errors for every unwanted error it created.  And the millions of Strava/Komoot etc etc users in the U.K. would notice the difference.
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 07:40:56+00:00): I mourn the loss of information contained in those special 44 cases, highlighting where on the ground reality diverged/s from official record.
DaveD (2022-09-12 07:43:05+00:00): Likewise. My app of choice (OutdoorActive) will not route down a path that is marked access=private and designation=public_footpath.
DaveD (2022-09-12 07:51:41+00:00): Pink Duck, I think you're missing the point. A blocked footpath is access=no, not access=private. Blocking a public footpath (legally or illegally) does not (and SHOULD not) make it private.

The fact that the underlying land is private does not affect the access status of the way itself. A public footpath is as much a right of way as a public road.

(My "likewise" was agreeing with John Stanworth, in case it's not clear.)
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 07:55:35+00:00): I’ve seen public footpaths where construction workers install tall closed fencing gates but without lock, though a black/white sign stating 'PRIVATE'. Legally they might not be able to obstruct access, so access=private captures such a case better.
DaveD (2022-09-12 08:06:40+00:00): Putting up a sign does not make a public footpath private.

If it's a permanent, legal closure, then the correct action is to remove the designation=public_footpath tag.

If it's a temporary, legal closure, then the correct action is to add access=no with a note.

If it's an illegal closure, again I would suggest that the correct action is to add access=no with a note.

Nothing you can do to a public footpath makes it private. That combination of tags is fundamentally contradictory.

In your case, it sounds like the footpath is still usable, so the access tag should not change anyway.

I've been through all the cases changed by this changeset and in none of them does there appear to be a case for access=private. The only case where DaveF's change introduced error appears to be the one highlighted above, where the former line of a diverted footpath had not had its "designation=public_footpath" tag removed.
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 08:13:34+00:00): In my example, the construction workers and land owner can still access temporary works. The access key is general, foot a narrower overriding transport mode. There’s no issue with the two sitting together. Foot access could generally be rejected with both access=no and access=private in routing.
DaveD (2022-09-12 08:22:25+00:00): The only way a public footpath can be private is if it is legally diverted or deleted.

Again, I repeat, nowhere that I can see did DaveF's change introduce a problem. Your objections appear to be hypothetical.

I think the problem is that there is a difference between LEGAL access and PRACTICAL access, and the two may diverge. Whatever you do to a public footpath - even building a house on the line - does not affect its legal access status, though obviously it renders access impossible in practice. 

Possibly the way to deal with blockages (temporary or permanent, legal or illegal) is to tag the node where the blockage occurs, rather than the whole way.
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 08:26:14+00:00): My case was among the 44 and an on-the-ground survey instance like most others, nothing hypothetical about it. Could have done barrier=gate with access=private and foot=designated I guess.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 09:14:51+00:00): @Pink Duck  Can you please give an example of a way that was adversely affected by this change where mapping that was correct "on the ground" is now incorrect?
So far I'm aware of basically two sorts of cases in the list below - ones like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/723570831/history where the original access=private was surely a cockup, - something looked private, but technical actually isn't, and ones like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054074314/history which is a different sort of cockup - a "private" tag looks like it got left over from splitting the way.  Maybe the error in this second one is with the highway tag not the access one, but either way I don't see how information is really lost here.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 09:17:37+00:00): @DaveD Does OutdoorActive route down "highway=footway; foot=yes; access=private"?  If it doesn't, that's a bug, and it'd be great if you could badger them to fix it.  If not, I'd suggest stopping using that app because it is just broken.
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 10:19:28+00:00): @SomeoneElse: Yes, way 992713995. Without my bringing this to people’s attention, suddenly a PRoW footpath exists through someone’s private property, such as its previous route pre-official modification. Common with such mass automated edits without careful inspection of each situation. I’ve rectified this particular one.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 11:13:35+00:00): in the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/992713995/history , not really - that public footpath (with "foot=designated") has been there since you added it 11 months ago.  The "access=private" never had any effect, because it was "highway=footway".
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 11:21:57+00:00): Either tagging form permits foot, since highway=footway has implicit foot=designated. However, the access=private was of use in understanding that a change was afoot, and a situation worth following up.
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 11:23:17+00:00): This like others is problematic in future when a PRoW route changes, such that the underlying route accessibility would have been lost through this changeset (until someone surveyed again).
DaveD (2022-09-12 11:42:55+00:00): @SomeoneElse I tried to run an Overpass Turbo query to find ways with that combination but I couldn't find any. Is this the right code?

(
  way["highway"="footway"].
  way["foot"="yes"].
  way["access"="private"]({{bbox}});
);
DaveD (2022-09-12 12:02:46+00:00): @SomeoneElse: It wasn't the right code, but I worked it out (I restricted the results to Oxfordshire, randomly, to stop it timing out).

(
  area["name"="Oxfordshire"]->.boundaryarea;
way(area.boundaryarea)["highway"="footway"]["foot"="yes"]["access"="private"]({{bbox}});
);

This query found this way:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31900579

And yes, OutdoorActive will route along this way. So it looks like it's behaving correctly.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 12:25:29+00:00): For completeness, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1lOm is a shared query that is close to what you might want.  All of these are likely mistagged, as the "access=private" on a footway will be overridden by the "foot" tag, and access tags for other modes are assumed to be "no" by default as it's a footway.
DaveF (2022-09-12 12:26:58+00:00): > Yes, way 992713995.

Are you serious?
/You/ created the way with inaccurate tags.
The way was flawed before my changeset because the access tag does not usurp a designation tag. 
It was still flawed after. The changeset made no difference to the error. 
The changeset has brought to your attention your error & allowed you to now amend. You may thank me.

Given the parked cars, the track with wheel marks & the boat trailers I believe it's inaccurate to tag those ways a footways.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 12:27:51+00:00): One situation where "Remove access=private from footways with designation=public_footpath" might be incorrect is where the it's not the access tags that are incorrect but the highway tag.  If any of these 44 ways was actually a highway=track, but incorrectly tagged as a highway=footway, then it's the "highway" tag that needs changing, not the "access" tag.
John Stanworth (2022-09-12 12:31:02+00:00): My preferred app ‘Footpath’ also routes down that path. I didn’t think it would!
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 12:42:24+00:00): @DaveF re "you may thank me" above, being a smug git is not helping anyone, especially you.  Let's try and work together here and understand each other's point of view.
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 12:43:41+00:00): @DaveF: Yes, I’m serious. I’ve personally walked that route several times over the years with GPS trace as it’s marked on the ground. The council GIS is actually worse, right through the slipway and parked cars. The definitive statement is pretty useless. The definitive map roughly shows the route following the bank of the river.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 12:48:19+00:00): @Pink Duck but it sounds like what you're saying is that in your example the "highway" tag was wrong - it's not just for foot traffic, and so DaveF's "fix" here is incorrect (and has actually made the problem worse)?
The southern part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/992713995 can't logically be a highway=footway and the aerial imagery suggests not either, but I'm not familiar with the area of course.
Pink Duck (2022-09-12 12:54:31+00:00): It’s a disused former road route to the dam, primarily for foot traffic given the often locked gate. A style and rough surface follows further south. What was out of date was the presence of designation=public_footpath.
DaveF (2022-09-12 15:08:54+00:00): @DaveD
If you mean: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223403981/history
Then no, My changeset didn't introduced any error. The incorrect designation was added in a previous amendment. Removing an access tag doesn't change the meaning or implication of the designation tag.

@Pink Duck
The official record /is/ reality.

"construction workers" (actually the developers) can apply for a TTRO suspension of access rights. Access=no is the correct adjective tag in that instance.

------
For clarity the 44 amendments are the total number of ways, not the number of different footpaths.
Check how many footpaths without an access=private tag cross private land in order to assess how little effect this changeset has.
DaveD (2022-09-12 16:02:59+00:00): @DaveF Yes, that's the one I meant. Technically, I guess you're right - the original error was in the designation tag, not introduced by you. But the access=private tag was correct and your edit removed it, meaning an app could potentially route along it.
DaveF (2022-09-20 19:33:43+00:00): @SomeoneElse
This changeset is in no requirement of "help".
It needs contributors to comprehend the meaning of the access tag.
You've fallen into the same trap as the BBC in assuming there are always two equal sides to each discussion which deserve equal consideration. Failing to understand a subject is not a valid argument.
To quote Douglas Adams:
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others"

I take note of your ad hominem attack for future reference.

There's been criticism from someone who, in the very next sentence, confessed to not comprehending what they're talking about, as well as Pink Duck's whataboutery, attempting to pass the responsibility for his poor mapping onto others. Explain why these actions shouldn't be described as harassment?

It's concerning how much erroneous data may have been added to the database given the clear lack of understanding.
DaveF (2022-09-20 19:35:19+00:00): @PinkDuck
You said "I’ve personally walked that route several times"
This, again, is more irrelevance. 
You said "What was out of date was the presence of designation=public_footpath", and yet you didn't remove it, instead adding access=private believing it overwrote the designation tag. It does not. And tried to blame me for it. You can't.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-20 23:35:14+00:00): @DaveF What I was trying to do was to understand _why_ people thought that there was a problem here.  What that did was to bring out the fact that some of the mismatched tags weren't because the "access" tags were wrong, but others - the "highway" tag in a couple of cases (some since resolved by other mappers, others not yet).
In examples where it's unclear what caused an "odd combination of tags" each example really does need to be discussed with the original mapper (or if not possible, just resurveyed) to understand what went wrong.  That's something that (and I'm trying to be polite here) your people skills don't seem to have equipped you for, so it's probably better if other people do that.