I’ve been working on a college that has a fence to the front, a long thin yard about 3 metres deep, and then the entrance.
Whenever the main entrance is open for business, the gate is also open.
Do I mark this as a gate, as an entrance, or not at all?
Currently I’ve called both of these entrances. Inconsistently, I’ve called the gate at the back (north) of the site a gate, because there’s no entrance nearby.
I would only tag the building door as an entrance. I would tag the gate as a gate. If it were the primary entrance to the campus, I might consider using both barrier and entrance.
I would also map the fence, using the same nodes as the relevant part of the amenity boundary, and I would either map a way leading from the public road, through the gate, or, if there is no specific path, map the relevant part of the grounds as being a pedestrian area.
The result when you look at the lines on the map isn’t a very good representation of the reality on the ground, because roads appear to have no thickness. (It’s only at a close zoom that you see the disparity.)
Presumably this doesn’t matter? It’s just diagrammatic.
The map is the database, not a particular rendering of that database. You can add the width of the path as a width attribute (don’t do that on the one for connectivity from the road, as that is only needed because the road is also only coded as its centre line.**). However,I’m not aware of any map renderer that makes use of widths on highway=footway.
(You can also map the path as area=yes. but, in my view, that is over-mapping, and most routers don’t really understand how to route across areas.)
Incidentally, you should use access for the foot access to footways, not no access with a separate foot access. Also, although possibly debatable, I would say access=private here, as I presume you need to be a member of the college to have permission to use the path. (In the real world there are far more shades of access right than OSM encodes.)