Try again, this time with something vaguely resembling civility.

There isn't.

Oh yeah - didn't spot that. The auto-fixer must have throw a hissy. Fixed.

Yeah, sorry - bit grumpier than intended.

It can get a bit wearing dealing with the passive aggression on open source projects.

There are two ways you could have handled this:
1. Christ on a bike, this bloke's added a ton of rights of way in MK that nobody had bothered with before, most of which were completely missing. Let's tidy up the loose ends and move on;
2. The way you chose.
May I politely ask that you develop some inter-presonal skills before communicating with me again?

Actually, looking at this more closely I am going to revise the line a bit. I don't think the MK system has got this one right.

It is the right of way as per the MKCC GIS system (and OS). From the aerial it looks like there *might* be an underpass there (the way OS is drawn seems to imply it), which seems to be the case with the nearby bridleway. Since I won't get down there for ages, fell free to add a "needs survey" fixme, but the line of the route is correct. There are a fair few eccentric ones!

Additional (additional): Have added the PRoW_refs for ease of reference.

Additional: curiously, if you follow TV6 back to London Road, and then check on Streetview, just north of the Pyghtle, someone seems to have mislaid the public footpath signs. Careless, that....

Assuming you mean the ones at Wollaston Cricket Club, the right of way that goes behind the nets (path TS1) leads to a gate with a Public Footpath sign to cross the A509.

The one that cuts across the ground (path TS2) seems to point to the end of the crash barrier on the A509, but I'm not sure I would fancy crossing there and there is no signage - and what looks like a ditch (ages since I've been there so relying on Google 2021 streetview pix).

However, both are clearly marked both on North Northamptonshire's own mapping service and Ordnance Survey, so the right of way exists. TS1 and TS2 both begin at the stream, TS1 as a continuation of TV6, with TS2 of TV7 (the stream is evidently the parish boundary, V denoting Wollaston and S for Strixton).

In the aerial imagery you can clearly see both paths marked out in the crops on the Strixton side.

The Parish or Town councils should probably look into this... The logical solution is as you suggest, but that is not where the RoW run!

TL;DR Rights of Way can be odd and the Highways Agency sometimes cocks up, while parishes are sometimes a bit sleepy...

There is a similarly dangerous one in Olney.

Oh, as did BW20

Found it - came into force on 2nd Feb 2021

Yeah, I found the order - not sure why the map hasn't been updated (although it is getting a bit hit and miss). There is also a landowner who refuses to accept they can't just block the path...

No worries - the access=private won't have been mine (at least not deliberately), but some people get too whingy if you tamper with their work and frankly life is too short, so unless there is a compelling reason I tend not to. So I just did the stuff I know from memory, a cousin who has been walking the area a lot recently and the Gwynedd RoW map (such as it is). For definition I now tend to use and rely on the 'designation' tag, but that is very rarely used by anyone else. Alas, OSM is starting to suffer from the perennial open source problem of too many ways to do they same thing.

Well, that's stupid but whatever, and if you want o make the map less accurate and less useful that's up to you. Edit wars are for losers.

I realise that people who think they own the project don't often react well when they get pushback against their recipe for confusion, but that is the perennial problem with open source projects, and the reason so many editors have just walked away. The number of areas that are badly undermapped or just years out of date speaks to the crisis in editor numbers that has been noted in the press. This sort of nonsense is why.

I found a load of wildly inaccurate and incomplete information in an area where I have deep roots. I fixed it, taking guidance from the system, in a consistent way that made sense, but not going outside areas I am not familiar with. In my own time, like everyone else. So if you are going to patronise, do not be surprised at the reaction.

What do you think I have been trying to do? I couldn't get clean data. So cleaned it.

But anyway, you are mistaken. The Wiki gives your method as an *alternative* and clearly states that other methods are not deprecated (sidenote: St A is the only place I have seen this method, but I don't map areas I'm not familar with). Also, path+sidewalk renders perfectly well and is much easier to distinguish from the PRoWs when styling downloaded data that has been neglected for years.

Given that a big fat chunk of St Albans and district is mapped only because I spent weeks doing it in the early days (and recently corrected one of my own 9-year-old errors), and the area I am now is only not 5 years out of date because I do it, we'll have a little less of the of the patronising twattery please.

Well somebody needs to update the interface and its guides, since footway has foot=designated as an assumed value just as bridleway has horse=designated. All I know is that it was all but impossible to extract usable rights of way data that wasn't riddled with errors, so I fixed them in the clearest and most consistent way I could that was also consistent with the instructions in the editor.
I can see a case for including a way where there is a clearly separated refuge crossed by a longer path, but none whatsoever where there is no other path or footway.
But what do I know. I just found a whole load of villages hamlets in the heart of England that nobody had ever bothered mapping. I'm beginning to remember why.

Yeah, that's not the right way to do crossing - that should be on the node. Footway is for public rights of way. It was impossible to pull out rights of way since Designation hardly ever gets filled in (although I have fixed a lot of that now).

As far as I can tell, yes - it's a bit weird, and I'm not sure why. I toyed with deleting it, but didn't feel confident enough (signage is inconclusive and OS not helpful) think possible it was added to give a steer to safer crossing place (the straight line is quite dangerous, where as the spur has a refuge island). Am open to persuasion as to what to do.