The DWG mailbag gets quite a few complaints** of the form “xyz app, map or router is routing people along somewhere that it should not”. Unfortunately most of the complaints (by a country mile) are about closed source apps and maps that use OSM data in combination with others, and these often don’t publicise the rules they are following, so looking at what is documented won’t help.
In England and Wales we get quite a few complaints because ways without any access tags are assumed by some apps to be open to all - some apps suggest cycling on a highway=path with no other tags is likely to be OK. It isn’t - arguably it’s the mapper’s fault for not making access rights explicit, arguably the wiki page editors’ fault for the section of the page mentioned above, and arguably it is the app author’s fault for thinking that the road rules they are familiar with (in e.g. Germany) apply in England and Wales too, or that the OSM wiki is somehow authoritative.
However expecting app authors to know all the rules and exceptions - to Allemansrätten in Sweden, to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code in Scotland, to obscure (to me) forest track width rules in some German provinces, is setting a high bar to clear, and you’re not going to do that in a simple wiki table either.
Personally, when mapping I’ll try and make access rules explicit, and when addressing issues reported to the DWG will try and do the same. That way the router authors have no excuse 
** More than a few complaints are misplaced - OSM is correct, the router is correct, but the complainant would just like reality to be different. I’m ignoring these “nimby complaints” in this answer.