That doesn't explain the need to remove the Wikipedia tag.
-----
How do I set the default language in Wikidata? At the moment I have to scroll all the way to the bottom, past all the excessive white & & unfilled boxes.

In Wikipedia the language selection is at the top.

What is the purpose of the edit?
What is wrong with brand:wikipedia?

I'd prefer to see the removal of wikidata tags whose pages are a poorly laid out hotchpotch of non information. Many appear to have been created solely so they be added to OSM.

You've misread the sign. & misunderstood the situation. It's attached to an *open* gate. The footpath you claim to be a bridleway is behind it. It only has kissing gate access

https://snipboard.io/QZFqRJ.jpg

The actual permissive bridleway is this one:
way/44639014

If permissive, then you should use the permissive_bridleway tag:

designation=*#Permissive_Paths

If so, it would great if you could update the barriers.

What evidence do you have of that? Did you take a photo?

It's designated as a footpath on the latest BathNES data & the barriers were all kissing gates when I last walked it.

Hi
What evidence have you that this is a bridleway?

Hi
It would be useful if you could correct that misinformation on the forum to prevent it happening to others.

This is also a duplicate.
node/11222291400#map=19/51.53686/-0.12787

You clearly not checked at all. This changeset requires reversion.

node/7159162454

What mad you think there wasn't already a station node at St Pancras?
node/3662847634

As you wanted to change the value why didn't you do it?

node/11195534037

Hi
Is this atm inside the newsagents, or in the wall of the closed bank?

Instead of removing tags why don't you update & improve them?

Hi
"Which should be shown here?"

Good question. When there are restrictions, such as fences stiles & bridges, I map to the real world as we don't want people falling into waterways.
If it's across open land I tend to map as the definitive PROW. However I've had a couple of cases where old zig-zag paths were aligned with field boundaries which had long since been removed. Mapping it as anything but a straight route across the larger field would have been ridiculous.

If the land owner has made sweeping changes it might be worth enquiring with the local authority if it was with their knowledge.

Hi again
If possible please retain valid existing ways, if their accuracy requires amending it's possible to unstitch them from existing features & to realign them.

Their history is useful for reference.

way/141250603/history

Hi
Why have you removed the Southern section of this public right of way (BRAD89)?
way/61744405#map=17/51.35603/-2.25543

https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=fec7fbd3-bd5a-4785-88a8-fe66e2928af3&cp=51.355482%7E-2.256874&lvl=16.9&sty=s&style=s

Oh & apologies for the terseness in my OP. I thought sent you a previous changeset comment explaining in more detail, but appears not to have registered.

changeset/140183021

I'm unsure as I never use these apps primarily because they appear, as in this case, to create more problems than they solve.