OK, thanks. Done in: osm.org/changeset/168784528

Can I check on the status of this footpath? It was originally mapped as a public foothpath but you changed access to private. However, the path is still showing as a public footpath on Staffordshire CC's PRoW map, so it doesn't seem access rights have legally changed. It does seem as though it was temporarily closed a few years ago for HS2 works but appears re-opened?

I've marked as reopened. Not local but multiple sources (inc council and BBC) indicate it's now open.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vkevrpk9lo

I've changed to cork for now but will also post on the community forum to see if anyone has any good ideas! I've also added colour. osm.org/changeset/156725111

Or, if you're sure it is Corkeen, I think we may need something different than surface=cork as I think that would give data consumers a bit of a headache to distinguish from, e.g., a cork board.

Hi,
Thanks. Yes, I noticed that when I visited this weekend (I quite enjoyed the bounciness!). I wasn't quite sure what to tag it as, which is why I went with the generic artificial turf but agree it's not quite right. I don't think it's cork though. I think it might be "wet pour rubber" which I think is just surface=rubber in OSM.

remove *construction* land use

I've created a discussion topic in the community forums, since this changeset comment is less visible: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/formatting-of-prow-ref/113129

Hi,
I went with the "<parish><path-type><number>" format as that is consistent with other PRoWs in Cornwall (though I admit, I have added a lot of those) and works with Rob W's online tool. It also matches the wiki based on previous talk-GB formatting discussions. I didn't think I should remove the "official" numbering entirely though, which is why I moved it to an official value. I don't think we have to match the exact formatting as the council in our tagging but I know you disagree (based on past wiki discussion comments). Might be worth another discussion, perhaps in the forum?

Yes, that's correct.

Ignore that. I see you were changing ele listed as feet to meters! Apologies.

The ele key is assumed to be measured in meters (see osm.wiki/Key:ele). Feet is technically not yet supposed to be used but should be indicated at least using a typewriter apostrophe character after the feet value (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-documenting-feet-as-an-an-optional-elevation-unit/108543 for more info).

I think brownfield is the correct value based purely on wiki definitions. Brownfield is documented as including land scheduled for future development whereas it documents construction for sites where construction is in progress.
Though, truthfully, I think a lot of brownfield sites (per the OSM definition) are (mis-)tagged as construction sites.

I was probably a little hasty in removing, but perhaps this should instead be tagged as landuse=brownfield. It looks like there's been no construction for over 6 years? Unless it has now started?