I've added access=private to these tracks and paths in changeset/180061600

Reverted in changeset/180061375

These should be tagged with access=private rather than being deleted. The reasons for this are explained in the OSM wiki at the links below:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

In this changeset, you have replaced barrier=kerb ways mapped by @cebderby with highway=footway + footway=sidewalk ways.

The sidewalks should be added behind the kerb line (further from the centre line of the street and closer to the buildings).

If you use the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels layer in the iD editor, this can help with alignment to neighbouring property boundaries.

I'm not sure what the right tag would be for this, so it might be worth asking on https://community.openstreetmap.org/ for suggestions.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

A tourism=viewpoint node on a one-way residential street surrounded by terraced housing seems unlikely. What were you trying to achieve with this edit?

When you add separate sidewalks, the sidewalk:both=separate tag needs to be added to the way representing the "parent" street, replacing any existing sidewalk=* tag.

When you add separate sidewalks, the sidewalk:both=separate tag needs to be added to the way representing the "parent" street, replacing any existing sidewalk=* tag.

If you're adding separate sidewalks to roads, please could you also update the sidewalk=* tag on the way representing the road itself, e.g. to sidewalk:both=separate ? Thanks!

If you're adding separate sidewalks to roads, please could you also update the sidewalk=* tag on the way representing the road itself, e.g. to sidewalk:both=separate ? Thanks!

If you're adding separate sidewalks to roads, please could you also update the sidewalk=* tag on the way representing the road itself, e.g. to sidewalk:both=separate ? Thanks!

If this is this a problem with a specific OpenStreetMap-based router, it might be better to raise a support ticket there, as only a very broken router would send cars along the footpath.

1) The footpath is currently tagged with highway=path + foot=permissive + horse=no - assuming that this really is a permissive footpath, it might be better to change this to highway=footway + foot=permissive (all other transport modes are implicitly "no" on a footway).

As the gate was already tagged with access=private , adding motor_vehicle=no is unlikely to help (also, "no" is not a synonym of "private" - no means that the transport mode is legally prohibited for all users at all times). It should also have foot=permissive to match the access on the path, otherwise it breaks pedestrian routing.

Thanks for spotting and fixing that, I missed it when I removed the access restrictions from the path.

As you didn't reply, I've reverted this. I should have done it in May 2025. changeset/179854059

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

This section of road was already tagged with access=private which applies to all transport modes, so motor_vehicle=private is implicit.

Adding motor_vehicle=no means that all motor vehicles are legally prohibited here, which seems unlikely given that aerial imagery shows cars parked adjacent to the road. The access values "no" and "private" are not synonyms.

Many thanks - I've added it in changeset/179744455

Thanks.

Thanks for realigning this road.

I've changed it to highway=residential, split the landuse and traced the houses in changeset/179643405

The highway has a Designated Street Name USRN, but there isn't (yet?) a name in OS Open Names or OS Open Roads. I was wondering if one is visible in TomTom's proprietary street side imagery?

The path is still visible in aerial imagery. What has caused the path to cease to exist - construction work, site redevelopment, addition of a gate/fences, etc.?

Track reconnected in changeset/179638642

Access tags in OSM should reflect the legal position, not a subjective opinion about whether it is undrivable.

Also, intentionally disconnecting highways in order to break routing for one transport mode is bad enough, but that breaks routing for *all* transport modes.

That said, the access tagging on Orestan Lane and Dirtham Road looks highly dubious to me - access=yes would probably only be correct if these are BOATs (byways open to all traffic). Are these signed as public rights of way at all, and if so, what type?