I finally got around to asking about this on talk-gb https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-May/030398.html
The first couple of responses are in favour of adding designation=public_* despite it not being in the definitive map/statement. In which case I think I'd add a definitive_prow=no tag or similar so they could be found separately.

Thanks. I can't find any mention of the track being lit anywhere, and you'd think they'd have made an announcement about it if it was a retrofit, so I might just leave it as-is until the situation is clearer. Thanks again. Tom

Hi Daveymorrisuk. As well as correcting the tagging to leisure=track here you added lit=no. Obviously it was a long time ago but I wondered if you remembered why? I was there yesterday and there were lights, but it was the middle of the day so I can't be sure they work. Thanks 👍

Thanks skifans.

It's about Cunliffe Lane and a bunch of other 'non-definitive' paths around Esholt, as well as some other Bradford CC areas apparently (though I'm unlikely to get to those). On the one hand the on-the-ground signage is official 'Public bridleway' / 'Public footpath', but clearly that's not the legal position and their rights of way map data is open licensed. It's unclear what the council have done so far apart from mapping and signing it, and it doesn't sound like there's much prospect of them becoming designated in the next eight years (before the current cut-off). So you're probably right that proposed: is too strong.

However we choose to map it the verifiability issue will remain I think (unless I'm misunderstanding) given what the council have and haven't done. So I think designation=non_definitive_public_bridleway etc makes a lot of sense (although likely to suffer hyphen underscore confusion. If not then maybe as you also suggest non-definitive:designation, or unofficial:designation. Whatever it'll need a note to explain what's going on.

Hi skifans. I got in touch with Bradford Council about this and the other 'non-definitive' paths on the area. I'll paste their response below but wonder about adding not:designation=* or proposed:designation=*
I think I'll ask at talk-gb too but wanted your opinion first.

From council:
Non-definitive paths as the name implies are routes that are not currently recorded on what is known as the 'Definitive Map'. They do though tend to be routes we would accept as carrying public rights and are protected as such by the Council. The Definitive Map is generally taken as being the legal record of public rights of way and came into being following the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However not all authorities, Councils etc. implemented the requirements of the Act and within Bradford there are a few areas that weren't originally covered by the Map. Bradford North, South and West are areas that didn't have the map as was an area in the centre of Keighley. As a Council though they did keep records of routes within those areas that it acknowledged as being public and gives them some level of protection.

In more recent years we've created maps for those areas and have started the process of formally adding the non-definitive routes to make them definitive. The process is though slow and its likely to take many years and financial commitment before all routes are formally recorded but in the meantime and as noted above we would look to protect such routes as we would for those in a Definitive area. We also have non-definitive routes with Definitive areas as not all paths were recorded, others come into being through use or are provided as part of developments so no map is ever really complete!

Hi there AWMapper. I'm glad that the National Trust are hoping to contribute to OpenStreetMap but I found a number of the changes you made to Helsby Hill in this edit to be problematic.
You have deleted a number of existing footways, most notably the Slash Chutes. You have also removed public footpath status and references from several sections of public footpath in ways that don't make sense, as if the public footpath is a series of short disconnected sections.
This had been really carefully mapped recently and a comment on one of the previous changesets would have been polite before such changes. I would like some of these changes to be reverted but am interested in your explanation for them.
Can I also request that you try to submit changesets for a single set of changes at a time and provide a meaningful changeset comment that gives an indication of the changes you have made here.
Many thanks in advance.
TrekClimbing

also sourced from survey, LiDAR and StreetSide

Thanks. Yes, I realise it's asking a lot to remember from so long ago. Okay, I may have been a bit over-enthusisastic adding it previously - I'll check it out again next time I'm up there. I don't see much wildlife up on the Chevin and there's not usually any sheep so not sure it's animals that have made it but I remember there being a few branches in the way and at the least I should probably add a sac scale. Thanks again, Tom

Hi there LivingWithDragons. I was wondering if you could say why you changed osm.org/way/841053061 from a footway to a path? I'm interested because I realise you're a very experienced editor. I have tended to follow the advice of SK53 and not used path, but have struggled with this because many 'footpaths' are not explicitly signed regarding use by other modes. In this case there are 'no bike' signs at the entrance to the western side of the Chevin, at least from Surprise View, although that's often flouted. Anyway, I'm just interested in why you made the change. Thanks, Tom

To clarify, I'm on the fence about a straight retag - I expect it's a typo and any more specific meaning is still vague and difficult to interpret beyond unpaved, but I suppose it's possible someone meant something different. Given the small numbers maybe start with a changeset comment where this tag was used and then retag if no response? At least unpaved is widely interpreted by consumers.

Thanks. I expect it is just a typo in the few cases that there are. I suppose some editors could mean an unimproved surface, which is a bit more specific than unpaved, but it's unclear and like an oxymoron. If this was the meaning I would prefer 'natural', and would still think it reasonable for StreetComplete to ask for a more specific tag if possible, as with unpaved. As a side issue, I would sometimes like to tag paths as stony ground, which I don't think is really covered by the other options except unpaved, but it's very rarely used currently.

Hi Mateusz, it wouldn't be wise to retag blindly but this isn't. I walked it on Sunday with half a mind on mapping. The vast majority is unpaved. There may be very small sections over culverts in concrete or rock but the rest would be somewhere between compacted and dirt. Unpaved is an improvement until it has a more detailed survey.

Thanks very much!

Tom

Hi Mikey Co. I'm guessing these chalets would be better with a building=* tag than highway=yes but I'm not local so can't survey them. Can you remember?

Thanks very much

Tom

The other changesets:
osm.org/changeset/132901745
osm.org/changeset/132901646
osm.org/changeset/132901628
osm.org/changeset/132901582

The other changesets:
osm.org/changeset/132901745
osm.org/changeset/132901646
osm.org/changeset/132901628
osm.org/changeset/132901534

The other changesets:
osm.org/changeset/132901745
osm.org/changeset/132901646
osm.org/changeset/132901582
osm.org/changeset/132901534

The other changesets:
osm.org/changeset/132901745
osm.org/changeset/132901628
osm.org/changeset/132901582
osm.org/changeset/132901534

The other changesets:
osm.org/changeset/132901646
osm.org/changeset/132901628
osm.org/changeset/132901582
osm.org/changeset/132901534

Thanks for your comment and correction.

Regarding bike parking, I presume it isn't in the middle of the road? i.e. It should be off to one side I imagine.

I don't know what the on-the-ground situation regarding the track surface but usually one of paved or unpaved should cover it? Or it can be split into different sections?

Regarding the track/service road, again, I don't know the on the ground situation but a track should be primarily for agricultural vehicles and a service road for access. It may well be a track after the parking (the south-western part) but before then has to be a service road (unless the one ways are also wrong). Another minor point, the section of service road through the parking that is part of the main loop shouldn't be tagged as a parking aisle, that's just for minor offshoots like the one heading NNW-SSE.

Thanks again