Thank you both for your thoughtful responses and for explaining the tagging conventions. I genuinely appreciate the clarification, and I now understand that access=* is based on legal rights, not just physical access. That was my misunderstanding, and I apologize for any confusion or disruption caused by my edits.

To your question—I’ve already corrected the changes here and will identify if any other locations need to be corrected or discussed further. I want to make sure the data aligns with community standards.

I also want to kindly ask if the requirement to post in the community forum before any access tag changes could be reconsidered. I completely understand the need for consensus and transparency, especially in complex or disputed cases. However, for small, good-faith corrections—especially when there’s visible signage or other supporting evidence—it may be more practical to allow experienced contributors some discretion. I’d be glad to engage on the forum when something is ambiguous or potentially controversial, but I hope that a middle ground could be considered for routine edits.

Lastly, if a “No Trespassing” sign is posted by a private individual, does that alone justify tagging a road as access=private? I’d appreciate guidance on how to evaluate the legitimacy of such signs and determine whether a road is truly private or publicly accessible, particularly when services like mail or trash collection still occur.

Thanks again for your time and engagement. I enjoy contributing to OSM and want to ensure my efforts continue to be accurate, constructive, and in line with community values.