Oh, ok. It is time, anyway, to summarize the discussions so far. Or, rather - to narrow down to one proposal that works for most cases.
I think the big majority agrees on path-subtypes, not necessarily the new highway tags. I guess something like path=* or pathway=* would work.
The values you had before are ok as the start for filtering them down. The more I think about the distinction “by width” during recent hikes, the more I like it.
I’ve listed the examples at Discussion about deleting the highway samples page - #18 by _MisterY. The post could use some polishing but contains the essence of what I find useful for hiking paths.
Perhaps we can have a summary post here and/or start a new discussion on what the sub-types should be. Most have (rightfully) agreed that the route to Manaslu is not a path. The rest are just shades.
For example, I still don’t see scramble as a separate entity. Scrambling routes are the lower part of the UIAA scale. I’ve been tagging many climbing crags and routes recently, so that they are visible on OpenClimbing, and noticed that there is all sorts of tagging applied to them. Some are paths, some are climbing routes. Scrambles can be identified by using (unfortunately) both of these - higher-SAC paths and lower UIAA grade climbing routes. Some people free solo 4+ paths, so that can be considered a scramble, too.
And so on. The point is that we should now move on to see which are obvious sub-types to start with.
And, yes, we should continue with wiki posts for the work-in-progress items. Before it is suggested as an RFC, we could polish the ideas down further in a wiki post.