... and here we go again.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are a "vandal".
As to other contributors providing evidence - your own photographs showed that they were at least partially correct!
It appears that everything in osm.org/user_blocks/5311 still applies.
Please take a step back and consider how you deal with other people in the project. If you don't change your ways we may have to restrict your future access to it.
And please, don't try and "argue" with this comment that I have just made. It will be counterproductive.

In summary - I can see your point of view, and I can also see the point of view of those who say that you're wrong. Unlike your profile picture, not everything in OSM is black and white - sometimes we need to discuss things with other people and come to a compromise.

Re the changes to 965429633, I've had a look at the pictures. The tags that it has had can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/965429633 .

Working up the hill, it clearly has/had some legal status
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x2eFZ5sWSsKAA6CmYv9i6KWSKysEQ6hX/edit
20220404_170504.jpg
(Avis au public)

and at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nuQ_3PvAE1_D7KzSN55FWjjeP9rL5Ii/edit
20220404_170403.jpg
a bit of the old surface underneath can be seen

however at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZNDe39d7jzAXS-HhweLz5wYG3sB5ULZ/edit
20220404_170255.jpg
although the old surface can be seen,it doesn't look wide enough to be a track

Further up the hill
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X5M_fTc6o1U17qo_pVBYeqQZ69fb41Tr/edit
20220404_170240.jpg
doesn't look like much of a track any more - extra tags would surely help to better describe it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tvNQP9QXMrlU_IJNJjBA9nQBY1wm-_ih/edit
20220404_170232.jpg
doesn't look like a track any more - it just looks like a gap between the trees.

I asked 2 questions and haven't had an answer yet. They were:
"Did you have any sort of discussion where they said it was OK for you to revert it?"
and
"Re 'I warned him', how exactly did you do that?"

Here you have used "Statistics Canada Road Network File (RNF)" as a source.
osm.wiki/Canada#Importing_government_data suggests "Statistics Canada data is used to import street names where they are missing from the other data sets. It is advised to not copy the geometry; however, you can use the street names database as a reference. "
I suggest that you discuss exactly what you are doing in more detail at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca .
Best Regards,
Andy

I've asked about this licence on talk-ca . The suggestion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-April/010401.html is that "not
a suitable OSM import data license". I would suggest that you discuss the use of this licence there.
Best Regards,
Andy

You have been asked numerous times about the sources that you have used:
@PopeyePopcord/blocks and gave evasive non-answers like on changeset/119735027 . In the absence of any sensible reply (and especially as this was the second time we have been round this merry-go-round) there was no alternative to a revert,

Yearsley, from survey 9/4/2022, tr8723a

For the avoidance of doubt, what licence is "Statistics Canada Road Network File (RNF)" made available under and where can we see that?

Sorry about the globe-spanning changeset again. Most of the data revwrted here was in Canada and in West Africa, although there is other data elsewhere.

See osm.org/user_blocks/5911

If you didn't do a revert here and JOSM thinks you did, that sounds like a JOSM bug...
We (the DWG) have had other complaints recently along the lines of "this mapper has reverted my edits" when they claimed not to have done.

Also Strensall Common, from survey 11/4/2022, tr8733b

Hello,
I'd you're going to correct things like way/848939252/history (and as no information is lost here I don't see why not) it might be useful to mention to the mapper that you've done so, and why, otherwise they might make the same mistake again...
Best Regards,
Andy

As changeset/119400601 makes clear,
It is not OK to revert another user's changeset if that was made in good faith, without any sort of discussion with that user.
This changeset has tags "created_by=reverter_plugin/35893;JOSM/1.5 (18387 en)" and "source=OpenStreetMap Carto (Standard)".
Please explain, before any other edits, what you reverted, where it was discussed, and what source you actually used.

Thanks for fixing!

Following on from changeset/119209542 , "highway=path" isn't appropriate for the constituent parts of a canoe trail, either.
Something like relation/14014674 as a relation is OK. See e.g. relation/5940597 for how this is done elsewhere.
Best Regards,
Andy

:)

Hello,
Is way/296216290/history perhaps missing a main tag?
Cheers,
Andy

Congratulations at being able to get through at node/9575840094 - a landslip prevented access when I was there the day before!