Hi
I'm afraid that OS maps usurps you being there. As i said, paths don't have to be visible to be legitimate, however I notice you you're aware of the stiles as you add access tags to them. The paths have never been removed from OS maps so you're claim you checked against them is false.
I'm unsure what crops you refer to as it's been grazing each time I've been there. Landowners are meant to provide a clear space through any crops.

Given you're inability to provide evidence they've been redacted I'm reverting your changeset.

Hi Nick
Where did you view "pink/red dotted line "?
Paths don't have to be visible to still be in existence
How did you verify they had been redacted?
Did the landowners say when they were deleted? What evidence did he provide?

The paths are shown on the latest OS map: http://tinyurl.com/ux3vu4c
They are still in the latest issue of the derived digital database from South Glos Council.
There is an exit next to the village hall. It's behind the car in this Google Streetview.http://tinyurl.com/wogpfr3

Cheers
DaveF

Hi
To check, is there reason you deleted Ashfield Railway Station?

Hi
In this instance, yes. All required tags are on the relation, I believe:
relation/1298740

Are you a student?

Enjoy your mapping.

DaveF

Hi
Welcome to OSM
You've made a common error for newbies by adding tags to a polygon way which is meant to represent a void (in this case a building). It now renders as a building.
way/87262330/history

Have a read of this to familiarise yourself with multi-polygon relations, the system used to map such objects:
osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon.

Cheers
DaveF

Hi
When you make deletion amendments to ways could you please check to see if they break route relations. In this case NCN 4 cycle route.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_retail

As much as an indicator to me to check after the Christmas period. If you know of a better tag, please let me know.

You would hope so, but maintenance of the definitive statement has always been lax. BANES are currently having, by law, to create one for the central city as it didn't exist.

They need to be updated to be defined by co-ordinates rather than transient objects such as 'boundary walls'

All DSs are old, unfortunately, but still current & legal.
Yes. One kissing gate:
https://snipboard.io/IR8xU4.jpg

I believe it ran down his track (google streetview):
http://tinyurl.com/rfzmch7
and Kingswood (legally?) relocated it into the field.
This is the definitive statement I've just obtained from BANES:
https://snipboard.io/D5aLuB.jpg
Note "path bound on North by wall, South by fence, 10 foot wide" The only place that occured was at the far end of that track here:
osm.org/go/eukh_7UJr-?m=&changeset=78063156.

Hi
Welcome to OSM
Why have you split these closed ways to create relations?
They lookd fine as normal polygons.

Please don't attach polygons to the centre line of roads. When a gate is added to the polygon's boundary to represent an entrance it will also insert the gate on the road messing up routing software.

Hi Nuggg
I walked it yesterday & see some signs have been erected. Unsure if they're by BANES or Kingswood off their own bat.
The reason I query this is the route is clearly shown South of the wall in two available sources:
This is the dataset issued by BANES. Blue is their path alignment, red is your amendment:
https://snipboard.io/3jTgQM.jpg
Ordnance Survey:
https://binged.it/342Evnl

Clarification from BANES is required.

PS Apologies, I see now you retained the stile.

Hi
That the conjoining sections are both 'Bath Road' as are the campsite & pub addresses, could that be the correct name?

Hi
Do you have evidence (signposts etc)?
There is a stile in the wall for walkers to cross ovr, which you removed for some reason.

Hi
No need to readd 'riverbank' as natural=water,
water=river is a better alternative which ties in with all the other 'water' tags.

changeset/73505035#map=16/55.6106/8.4678

Hi
I've read that a few times, but it doesn't say why.

Why can't the import bot check for building ways?

As it stands this makes the OSM database less effective.

Hi
Why have you "removed addresses from buildings"?
It's a perfectly legitimate, accepted means to add addresses in OSM.
Addresses are, after all, associated with buildings.

What were the "Various errors"?
Amalgamating isolated nodes with just addresses & no primary tags with 'building' ways improves OSM's database quality.
Why do you believe your edit hasn't reduced the quality?