I agree, but it seems to me that @harahu and @Gazer75 are mapping places where they have never been, mapping based on publicly available sources, not local surveying? This core idea of OpenStreetMap: Maps created by people having extensive local knowledge.
So even if I agree that the trail should be on the map, it might be that @harahu should leave the mapping to the locals? I personally don’t like it when “sofa-mappers” are editing trails in areas where I have put in a lot of effort trying to make high quality trail map data. Sorry for sounding harsh, it has to do with the following.
I have now seen discussions originating from public authorities wanting to programmatically update OpenStreetMap based on their data. Entur, a national public transport route planner make use of OpenStreetMap data, and this service needs accurate data. Accurate in their view is national data sources. So I’m concerned that Kartverket (N50) or Statens vegvesen (Elveg from NVDB) will set up automatic merging of their data into OpenStreetMap, and break the intention of OpenStreetMap data, making it a presentation layer instead of an independent map database.
This is partly what this dispute is about: OSM should in my opinion not accept independent data being manipulated by actors having economical or political interests, or by actors not having local knowledge.
I also don’t like people deleting objects with metadata. I think it is a better practice to change the tagging of objects. E.g. was:highway=path and adding relevant tags and a note or description explaining why that was made. This way we can safeguard deleted objects from reappearing in imports or similar editing approaches by actors not having up-to-date local knowledge.
In Norway you can park “anywhere” in “utmark” unless there are signs explicitly stating “No parking”. This is governed by Vegtrafikkloven. This means that “biloppstillingsplass” may actually qualify as a parking lot.
Friluftsloven, where the origin of the right of way, also defines “innmark” and “utmark”.
And there is no reason for not mapping a path crossing “innmark”. It can be labeled with relevant access tags. We do that all the time with grave yards, golf clubs, parks, meadows, which are “innmark” according to Norwegian law.
Fun fact: Drammen kommune has defined Hamborgstrømskogen, which is a forest area, as a park (and thus “innmark”) to be able to regulate bicycling on paths in that area. However I don’t think they have formalities around that in place (public hearing, “forskrift” etc.).