Hi Jez
I did think hard about this before making the change for practical purposes. Since then, further research shows there is a new potential better way forward, but first some background.

I've recently been using a couple of running apps (I'm guessing there's probably more). To the offset the lockdown boredom, I've been trying to run every street in my area, working outwards. This gives a great opportunity to match map to ground and has given corrections and footpaths not previously shown.
Both of these apps use the same algorithm. They pull an OSM street index, filter down to streets with names then exclude based on access (no, private etc). So, while not intentionally encouraging, the A66 through this section will be marked as runnable due to it being named. Local knowledge would tell you it's not, it is in practice an urban motorway.

My intent was to remove this encouragement, particularly as this was very close to where a cyclist was killed a few years ago.
You are right that there is legal access, however inadvisable.

Now, recently at least one of the app developers has been requested to make a change to cover these issues and they have recoded their algorithm to also exclude access=discouraged.
This feels like a better solution and is more in keeping with the OSM documentation. It has no legal definition and is subjective unless signed, but I think if you were found walking/running this section, the police would lift you out for safety.
I propose to flip over the foot access to discouraged. This would match the legal access definition, and also give practical (and safe) guidance.

How does that sound?

John

Hi Jez
You are absolutely right both sections are Clockwood Gardens. I've reverted them. That was an unintended edit. It's nice to know there's someone out there keeping an eye on things.
Recently, I've been running/walking every street in Yarm & trying to make a few edits to match the map to reality.
There's still work to be done on the new build areas.
Regards
John