As long as these paths physically exist they belong to the OSM data. I can see that unwanted paths create problems, but since you clearly marked them with signs that forbid access that seems like the situation is solved.
I have tagged the trails as access=private, which should discourage routing software to navigate through and also makes the rendering on the map different.

Sorry, but existing trails are valid data to keep in OSM database. For private property there is access=private

Can you specify what things were "listed incorrectly" and what does it mean?
All those roads still clearly show on satellite imagery.

I'd say this one is not a bridge :)
way/815704031

Perfect! Thanks for checking it for me.

Thanks for checking. Don't sweat it if you can't find it.

This is a bit time traveling, but do you remember, which park it is?

I assume that should indicate opposite direction to the general traffic, but I couldn't find any information.

I seems here they suggest to add 'cycleway:left:oneway=-1' as well.

cycleway=opposite_lane

Also, that path is definitely not called "(continues)"

Hey David, the area is clearly densely forested so it should have natural=wood to denote it is a forest.

Although, the natural=wood polygons that were added by Zack Bowden looked like that they could have stayed.

I just hope that no one moved the stone :)

Again so you can understand it:
* I did not change any data, I only added new data to OSM. You changed all counties in two states (CT, RI) and all COGs. That is a mass edit.
* Providing two numbers is no evidence of any wide consensus as you claim. All I can say is that you are just making it up and present your own ideas as what the community wanted.
* The dispute was not settled and is still active, yet you went ahead and executed your will.

I am accusing you of unethical conduct that is non collegial and is disrupting to the OSM community. If everybody would at like you do you would certainly not like it.

Hi, I am not sure if I wrote this to you (if yes then sorry). There is a better way how to tag hiking trails than describing them in name fields of ways. It is based on relations that group all ways belonging to the trail and no name tag is necessary.
example: relation/2971739

osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails

I am going to repeat myself here:
1. You have no privilege to mass edit someones OSM contributions.
2. I gave you no permission nor was the conversation finished.
3. You refuse to provide evidence of wide consensus to such tagging.
4. You make your own personal interpretation of tags that many disagree with and made some users upset.

From previous personal conversation with you, I am not surprised you can’t accept your fault.
But I just want to raise this to the community, if we are really fine with this kind of behavior. This approach can be really damaging. What motivation do I have to contribute to OSM if someone can just come and claim it for themself by tagging/modifying it to their liking?

Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.

Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.

Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.

Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.