I meant ‘aren’t‘

Sigh, your logic grip is poor. There's nothing there that says singular units are for use with singular coefficients.

"Valid units include: …, hour" - you aren't reading the same as me. You are interpreting the allowance of plural units as de facto. This is all fairly pointless when user agents have to support both forms.

Maxstay wiki is written such that plurals are accepted for plural coefficients, not that plural is the only accepted form.

Hm, was that really worth doing? It’s not like "8 kms" is supported (osm.wiki/Map_features/Units), even if the wiki is permitting of plural time units. Wasn’t a typo of mine.

I disagree with your view based on the single comment within the Talk page of highway=proposed. Per your own note, this idea has everything but the funded, and funded isn't happening soon, so to me it is a proposed route and should stay so.

Just because funding is not yet secured does not rule out the road won't happen. The whole point of highway=proposed is for roads with potential to exist in the future. If that potential has gone, then it can be deleted. Otherwise you should have left as is, with note.

Confirmed the change, deleted the excess node on the area below to neaten. Realised that that steps are actually still there, just hidden behind the front wood boarding and earth fill above. Raising the question of should unseen things be mapped? Probably not, hard to verify without digging :)

I usually add source=local_knowledge when using someone else’s note. Will verify also next time I pass by there.

How was it tagged incorrectly?

Seems a bit unreliable to use imagery alone to know they've gone.

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 What was out of date was the presence of designation=public_footpath.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: 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.

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).

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

I mourn the loss of information contained in those special 44 cases, highlighting where on the ground reality diverged/s from official record.