I see. I've obviously just ignored it then.

Yes, Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 applies 👍

Is the sign actually still there? don't remember seeing it when I was there twice within the last year.

Where are the signs? There is access right next to their entranceway, via an (intentional) gap in the small wire fence. The site adjoins the secure port area, but is outside it.

One other thing: this page: osm.wiki/Hiking#Tags_of_the_relation says that 'alternative' is only to be used on one of the two possible routes (where there are two routes on part of a relation). The intention is for the main route to have no role (or role=main), and the alternative to have role=alternative.

That's OK. If JOSM isn't happy with two alternative routes as part of a relation, then it's probably a bug in JOSM 😉

You have misunderstood the section you have quoted. Paraphrasing, it states: "If a relation has sections with a different route for forward and reverse, then here are some things to be careful about". It does NOT mean "If a relation has two possible routes for a section, then tag them with directionality".

I do not know what problem you are trying to solve by adding directionality, but I can say that having maintained the Fife Coastal Path relation for the past few years, I have had no problem keeping it correct. Please do not add directionality where it does not exist on the ground.

Why have you tagged these ways with 'forward' and 'backward'? The documentation (osm.wiki/Relation:route) says this is for routes which should only be followed in one direction, which is not the case for the Fife Coastal Path.

Not quite - the First Minister is opening the line tomorrow, and there are some 'Golden Ticket' trains running over the next few days, before timetabled services commence on Sunday 2nd June. I thought it was worth putting them 'live' a few days before as there is a delay before downstream users of OSM data update their systems.

Non-motorised access is allowed anywhere in Scotland, with some exceptions, per the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 - the fact a path is a core path has no bearing on this. The particular aspect of the access tag which I considered to be inappropriate was 'bicycle=yes', since these are informal unmade paths on private ground. I therefore judge it to be inappropriate to have them appear as cycle paths on maps, since this encourages cyclists to use them, and tends to imply that they are suitable for general use by cyclists. I would argue that it is better to tag these ways as paths and leave the access tags ambiguous than have them appear as blue lines on cycle maps. Having said that, do feel free to revert the changeset if you disagree - I won't be offended ☺️

Thanks. Yes, the same applies in the glen. I was careful not to apply it to paths which aren't wide enough, although that doesn't stop council workers driving their van down any old path.

That was sort of deliberate: I had trouble punching holes in the forest for the clearfell areas. The scrub areas are also still part of the Glenmore Forest, and render as scrub on the default map. The in-browser editor would not let me "merge" the scrub areas, to punch a hole in the forest, as it kept saying that one or more of the areas was not fully downloaded. My usual workaround of going round the whole edge of the area didn't work for some reason. If the scrub areas need to be removed from the forest, then I would be grateful for any assistance. Is there perhaps an editor that would work better for this task?

Yes - there was an obvious kink in the path on OSM which does not exist in reality. I also made some other minor tweaks to make the curve a wee bit smoother, and I have reclassified it as a shared cycle and footway to reflect the reality. Apologies if my changes disagree with your GNSS. You should be aware that unless you have a specialist high-accuracy GNSS receiver, the best you can hope for is an accuracy of about 4 to 5 metres.

It is open - even the bit under construction. Except when they're actually working on it. I will bear in mind the need for that extra tag in future.

The council has contractors building a cycleway over the existing narrow gravel path. Under construction cycleways don't seem to render on the default map, hence this change.

Sorry - I assumed this was a mistake. It does indeed say 'Craigwell Path' on the OS map layer. I've added it back. Should the dividing line between 'Craigwell Path' and 'Main Road' be moved so it coincides with the junction of Farm Road? OS Map data seems to be inconclusive.

Oops - you're right. There are indeed blue shared cycleway signs on that section. My mistake.

Thanks - I've changed it back. There's a dropped kerb along with a bike symbol painted on the cycleway near the Masterton R/about which, along with lack of blue cycle/pedestrian signs on that stretch, plus the narrow pavement, suggested to me that it was not a cycleway. I have consulted the Fife Council adopted roads map, which says it's a cycleway, so I've changed it back.

It could be argued that an unsigned pavement of a width not designed to be a shared footway is not really a cycleway, but I'm not particularly convinced by that argument in this case.

I don't see any signs in the Bing image you posted. If you mean NCN signs, they don't necessarily indicate that the NCN route is on the footway - it could be on the carriageway. And whether something is an NCN route doesn't really have anything to do with whether the footway has been designated as a shared cycleway by the road authority.

Apologies - I forgot to join that back up. Thanks for doing so.

Well spotted - for some reason I hadn't noticed that I had selected the admin boundary rather than the section of road - doh. Looks like I did it right the first time.

A quick google of "Colvin's Knowe" reveals that this marking on the OS maps is like to be the site of an old chapel and cists which no longer exist, or are no longer visible on the groud - see https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/record/hes/51094/colvins-knowe/rcahms. This ties in with the old OS map you found which also says 'Stone Cists found' - a cist being an ancient coffin or burial chamber.

Your choice of 'locality' as a tag therefore seems reasonable. 👍