Thanks for your reply, and thanks for helping your neighbours out, that’s kind.

(For anyone else reading along, this is in reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159776098#c1355574)

You have managed to edit the map successfully, but I have re-edited the tagging since, as the tags you’d chosen didn’t match the description you’d given of the issue.

Previously you said the path running along the south side of the tea garden is for the owners and customers. That implies that foot=customers is the appropriate tagging. In your message now you say that it’s private and not open to anyone (except presumably the owners), which would suggest foot=private is appropriate.

Both foot=customers and foot=private should prevent walking apps from routing people along the path by default, but in any case it will likely take a few weeks to a few months for all the apps to update — they only periodically re-download their data from OSM (and other sources) to update their maps. So unfortunately any change we make to fix this in OSM will take some time to trickle down to users.

Additionally, the tagging informal=yes relates to whether a path is planned, rather than whether it’s a public right of way. A good example of informal=yes would be a path which cuts the corner on a playing field (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:informal%3Dyes). So from what you say, I don’t think this path is informal (in the OSM sense).

So, to sum that up: if the path is meant to be used by customers (but not the public), it should be foot=customers. If it’s only meant to be used by the owners (and not customers or the public), foot=private. I would suggest removing informal=yes in any case, and unfortunately whatever we do here will take several weeks to trickle down to users of walking apps. But it will get there in the end.

Let me know if that makes sense, and I can make the appropriate changes and double-check things with you. Ta