Why the author column is the one we refuse
This is a source where the technically easy dataset and the defensible dataset differ, and the difference is one column.
Collecting routes with their authors produces a file describing where named individuals go running, at what times, starting from where. Aggregated, that is a serious privacy problem regardless of the fact that each row was individually published, because the aggregate reveals patterns - home areas, routines - that no single route does. Route start points near a home address are a well understood risk in this category and they are not hypothetical.
Collecting routes without authors produces terrain data: where paths run, how hard they are, what surface they cross, how routes cluster by region. Every legitimate commercial use we have encountered needs the second and not the first, so declining the author column costs the client nothing and removes the problem entirely.
The second point is aggregation. Popularity of a region or a route is a useful signal and it is an aggregate, so it carries none of the individual exposure. We deliver counts rather than the rows behind them.
The third is that route data is inferred infrastructure. Where people actually walk and cycle is different from where the paths are officially mapped, and for planning that gap is the interesting part - reachable entirely from de-identified data.