I don't have plans to delete these tags (at least not for now), as they don't seem to break anything and they don't annoy me that much as to go out of my way and go delete them right now (aside from being logically contradictory if we look it from a tag meaning perspective). But I will delete them when I finish the ways.

The only propose of your noexit tags is explicitly tagging for the router (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_router) because you are only using them to appease the OSMI validator. And actually, this seems like a validator that's acting weird because it only flagged the four gates that you've modified, and not the many other unfinished ways that are scattered in this neighbourhood. This behaviour should be reported as a bug instead of adding tags to mitigate it.

The wiki page of the noexit=yes tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:noexit%3Dyes) also provides guidelines that conflict with your tagging:
> It must be ignored by routing (GPS).
> ## When not to map (...) It's also not a substitute for the tag barrier=* when the road is stopped by a barrier or wall.
> ## Alternatives (...) If you wish to indicate that a way does continue but that you have been unable to map it for some reason use fixme=continue (or any other text) to show that a way goes further but is not mapped yet. This may often be a very short stub from a road indicating the start of a path or side road.

Also, it's confusing that you say adding barriers and accessways is "nonbeneficial micromapping" since you're adding these noexit tags to help a routing software on barriers and accessways.