Hi,

With some of the crossings over cycle tracks parallel to the grove, you've removed some traffic_calming=table tags and changed some crossings from unmarked to marked.

The crossings which have a table or hump are marked with a solid white triangle on their approach(es) (TSRGD diagram 1062, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11#tgp2-tbl2-tbd1-tr33-tc2 (. This should be visible in aerial and street side imagery.

With the unmarked crossings, although the cycle track around the crossings has a blue surface (and should be tagged with surface=asphalt + surface:colour=blue), this extends beyond the crossing. The crossing itself is not marked, so visually impaired users have to rely on they yellow dimpled tactile paving on both sides.

Please bear on mind that existing mapping, while incomplete and with some errors, was done by local mappers and largely from in person surveys.

Is there any particular reason why you've changed the crossing nodes at the intersection of High Street North / Heigham Road / Burges Road from crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked?

The fact that they were determined to be button operated and have sound signals by two other users conducting surveys with StreetComplete strongly suggest that they're still the pelican crossings I first mapped in 2020. It's also impossible in the UK to have a button operated crossing with sound signals which is an unsignalised marked crossing.

The sidewalk tagging on Ron Leighton Way was correct before you edited it. Now, if you are to be believed, there's a sidewalk on the inside of the roundabout (funny, I've actually been there and would have noticed). Also, the separately mapped sidewalk on the E side of Ron Leighton Way apparently isn't associated with the road any more, but it's suddenly acquired one on the W side where none exists.

Please revert your edit and be less careless in future. Pedestrian mapping in OSM is actually used by people who live here and that ALWAYS takes priority over a corporate box-ticking exercise.

... and fully reverted in changeset/171455900

That's no what your edit did and it was certainly not made in accordance with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Reverted in changeset/171455073

Re-tagged with sensible values in changeset/171454730

As these edits were clearly not made in line with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths and @NTTrailsLSE hasn't replied, I'll escalate this to DWG and National Trust.

Reverted in changeset/171454522

Please read:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
and
osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Your edit deleted the highway=path tag from these paths, effectively removing them from OpenStreetMap for rendering and routing purposes. You were certainly not editing OSM in line with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Reverted in changeset/171454270

Reverted in changeset/171454189

Updated in changeset/171453947

You need to familiarise yourself with osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

Are you sure that deleting desire line paths which are clearly visible in aerial imagery is the best strategy, rather than using a lifecycle prefix like disused:* or razed:* and a note=* (at least until the imagery catches up) is the best strategy here? Simply deleting them risks them being re-added by other mappers as highway=path ways.

I also note that you've deleted a section of the Ridgeway National Trail with this edit.

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".