Dear CoRo67, OpenStreetMap has policies and rules too. Where those of your employer and those of OpenStreetMap contradict, you cannot automatically assume that those of your employer have priority. 

When something is a private path/track/trail but clearly exists on the ground, we usually mark this with an "access=private" tag (or sometimes also "access=no" as you have done in some cases). We do not delete something outright that exists on the ground, like for example that part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/508134677 that extends into the watershed. 

Your local knowledge is welcome and we would love to enlist your help in documenting which paths actually do not exist on the ground (as in: when I go there I don't see a path), or which paths may exist but be forbidden to use. However this changeset clearly violates our rules at least in some places and hence I am reverting your changes for the time being.

If you would like to discuss this issue and ultimately find out how changes can be made that reflect your policies without violating ours, the US community forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 would be a good start!
