Perhaps an acceptable compromise within the existing cartographic standards is to mark the path as a generic <i>highway=path</i>, <i>highway=path</i> with <i>access=no</i>, as I've done <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.927711&lon=-118.340588&zoom=18&layers=M">here</a>. Symbolized this way, the path is still shown, but the appearance is distinct enough from a functional pedestrian bridge that a user browsing the map is unlikely to take away the mistaken impression that it's accessible. Hopefully, describing it as a generic path is accurate enough. Even though it was designed to accommodate pedestrians, it's currently off-limits to everybody, so not really a footpath in its present state.

Perhaps an acceptable compromise within the existing cartographic standards is to mark the path as a generic <i>highway=path</i>, as I've done <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.927711&lon=-118.340588&zoom=18&layers=M">here</a>. Symbolized this way, the path is still shown, but the appearance is distinct enough from a functional pedestrian bridge that a user browsing the map is unlikely to take away the mistaken impression that it's accessible. Hopefully, describing it as a generic path is accurate enough. Even though it was designed to accommodate pedestrians, it's currently off-limits to everybody, so not really a footpath in its present state.