Also, please read osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Also, not your decision to make. Please read osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Before you consider deleting anything, please read:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

This is tagged as a public right of way (Nettleden with Potten End FP 16), so it's hardly a desire line path.

If it's not a PRoW and the line of the PRoW is elsewhere, it would be helpful if your changeset comment actually described the problem and what you've done.

I assume that National Trust has a team which deals with PRoW issues, are they aware of this?

Also, before you consider deleting anything, please read:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

The problem with deleting these instead of using appropriate access tags is that they're visible on aerial imagery and likely to be re-added without any access restrictions or other information.

If you have a desire line path which is visible on aerial imagery on National Trust land where you are, as the landowner, in a position to forbid access, you'd be better off using either access tags, e.g.:

highway=path
access=no
informal=yes
note=*

... or lifecycle tags, e.g.

disused:highway=path
note=*

You can use the note=* tag to include a short description of why NT would like people to stop using it.

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

@JassKurn Unless someone else gets there first, I'll revert them tomorrow, after @NTTrailsLSE has had a chance to get into the office,read the DM I sent them and see the current state.

The Vyne aren't the only NT property who've had a bad day today.

What you've deleted here is a public right of way, part of Ivinghoe Footpath 27.

If the PRoW tags were applied to the wrong path, it would help if they were applied to the right path. This may help, although I'm sure NT has access to better information about PRoWs which cross its land:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/bucks/-/ivinghoe/

If you have a desire line path which is visible on aerial imagery on National Trust land where you are, as the landowner, in a position to forbid access, you'd be better off using:
highway=path
access=no
informal=yes

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

If it's private, you can just set access=private and delete any other tags which have the same value. Using access=no isn't a synonym for private, it means "not accessible by any transport mode, unless overridden by other access tags".

This edit doesn't mean that "The Hidden Realm" playground is for paying customers only (you'd add access=customers for that), but that it doesn't exist.

You don't really need access=permissive and =no for everything else in the iD editor's drop down list on a tagged as highway=footway with foot=permissive - everything apart from foot=permissive is redundant. Although it's unlikely, current permissions mean that you can literally drive a cart and horses through it (you haven't set vehicle=no or carriage=no, but please don't).

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately, deleting the highway=path tags here leaves data consumers with access permissions attached to nothing. You'll notice that they've completely disappeared from the map following your edit(s).

If it's a permissive footpath and isn't used by estate vehicles, I suggest using:

highway=footway
foot=permissive
designation=permissive_footpath
(no other access tags needed)

If it's used by estate vehicles, you might use:
highway=track
vehicle=private
foot=permissive
designation=permissive_footpath

You could also add the following to indicate who's responsible for the permissive nature of the path:
operator=National Trust
operator:wikidata=Q333515

Please let me know if you need any help reverting or repairing these edits.

I see that you have set crossing:markings=dashes on way/1421344450

Pedestrian crossings over public roads in the UK do not use dashes as crossing markings. They may use dots, a traffic sign authorised as TSRGD diagram 1055.1.

Some cycle only or segregated cycle crosssings may use dashes. This is not the case here.

You have also joined the temporary footway way/1392888355 to a kerb node. It isn't. It was added by people who regularly check on the progress of the roadworks here. The note tag is intended to be read by armchair mappers who might not be aware that the available imagery is not current.

Also, please don't tag links in the middle of complex junctions like way/655623536 as having sidewalks. They don't.

I'm also curious as to why you're placing sidewalk=both and sidewal=no with sidewalk:both=yes and sidewalk:both=no respectively. They're both valid, but is this a suggested tag "upgrade" from the Rabid editor?

Could you explain why you have added footway=sidewalk to way/1041807718 and way/1041807716 ?

These are not sidewalks. Not all footways in urban areas are sidewalks and the paths through the planted area between the two parts of Prospect Row are definitely not sidewalks.

I see that you replaced crossing:markings=zebra;dots with crossing:markings=dots on node/5933198168

I distinctly remember the TSRGD diagram 1055.1 dots being there on every one of the hundreds of occasions on which I have walked or run across that zebra crossing.

Thanks for deleting those. They wouldn't have been particularly helpful for pedestrian navigation.

Shouldn't that be ref:GB-NWM:planning rather than ref:GB:lbn:planning, as that's the ISO 3166-2:GB code for London Borough of Newham?

As usual for one of your edits, adding a fictitious weight restriction is not an improvement.

Pedestrians are not prohibited here and access tags in OSM are supposed to reflect the real legal position. There's no sign here, therefore no prohibition. Fiction removed.

I'm not sure how, but your edit also deleted a residential landuse polygon in Canterbury, UK. Reinstated in changeset/171323526