highway=path+access=no+foot=yes

Is this schema common in other countries and perhaps required by specific renderers?

It depends how legal access rights are defined in different places. Sometimes you have no access at all, apart from exceptions granted to certain modes. In other places general access is allowed, but for example motor vehicle access may be legally not allowed. As a community in Thailand you're going to need to figure out what best suits you locally (and it sounds like from your question that you already have).

As for rendering, it depends. A "general map" might show the two cases differently, but one concentrating on foot or cycle access might not. To be honest, there are so many different renderers out there (different maps and apps) that trying to second guess them is unlikely to be effective, regardless of even if it is a good idea.

Re the highway=path vs highway=footway part of the question as another answer says in some parts of the world people often use e.g. "highway=path;foot=designated" instead of highway=footway. Whether that works or not locally for you you'll have to decide. It doesn't work where I am (England) because it does not allow anyon to distiguish permissive access from legally enshrined access. That may or may not be an issue where you are, but I wouldn't rely on routers or renderwrs being aware of any local conventions.

I'd suggest going beyond purely legal tagging and using other tags such as surface, steps where appropriate, etc. to help data consumers understand what you are trying to imply.

From what I've seen around me (western europe), highway=footway are usually urban paths, often sign-posted or implicitly forbidden to other than pedestrian.

I use highway=path for any trail in the country-side that is not wide enough for a four-wheeled vehicle. For example, biking on a forest trail is not forbidden, except in some protected areas, it's just really hard. Smoothness and others tags should be used to discourage road bikes users to go that way.

For the specific highway=path + access=no + foot=yes combination, I don't really see the point. Maybe it's a standard preset in the editor of the user ?

From the defaults, it just blocks horses and bicycle.

My 2 cents.

The general expression for the legality to use a feature access=no (or access=private) + specific exceptions scheme combination is an aberration. Excuse me the adjective but it's true. It was never meant like that and the simple fact that OSM's Carto never rendered this scheme with exceptions is the proof. It is greyed no matter what exception. Wrong tagging can escalate so quickly in OSM because someone didn't take the time to read OSM's Wiki, (but even there "recently" they wrote that it is "OK"), or someone was too lazy to write all the appropriate tags and then other newbies copied just because they saw that someone does it. Don't use cheap lazy tagging schemes, be clear.

By the way, the general access key and the other specific ones should not be used for subjective matters, only if its legally allowed or not. In OSM no one has to judge for others about what is subjective, whether it is dangerous or not. You should be tagging according facts, what that feature defines in reality and use its counterpart tag which has been decided in OSM's Wiki. The example that H_mlet gave with pedestrian vs mountain biking is great. Or if a way is not suitable for motorcycles it might be suitable for motocross. You should rather record the key smoothness or surface. In OSM Carto highway=path + surface=unpaved renders differently from surface=paved or asphalt, etc... People imposing their subjectivity are not open minded and are just breaking the use of the map. In the example, it will actually disfavour potential sport tourism.