I've changed it to track and grade4

please review way 38278761:
I've changed the invalid tag
highway=tertiary;residential
to
highway=residential

please review ways
way 33715985,way 377070061
The tag
highway=unclassified;residential
was invalid, I've changed that to highway=unclassified
osm.org/changeset/34919799

please review way 377180789:
I've changed highway=tre to track

please review: your merge produced the
invalid tag
highway=residential;tertiary
This is likely to happen with iD, so take care!
I've changed it to
highway=tertiary

please review way 377154735:
the tag highway=parh looks like a typo for path,
but isn't it a highway=service;service=driveway?

okay, thanks. Satellite pictures don't show much details there ;-)

please review node 1374419034:
highway=forward:stop is rarely used.
Did you mean
highway=bus_stop
or maybe
highway=stop
direction=forward
?

Hi Minko,

please review: the way 6341890.
We have a boundary relation 2655594
with the name Stiens, I guess way 6341890
should just be tagged landuse=residential ?

okay, please consider also to use something
like highway=path,path=social_trail

Looking forward for the discussion on the tagging list...

oay, thanks, I''ll try that

okay, in that case I suggest to tag them with access=no. I am a co-developer of mkgmap,
a software which converts OSM data to Garmin img format, and I am pretty sure that almost all ways which are tagged with unusual highway=* are considered to be usable for all vehicles unless access=no
or similar is used. That's why I don't like the usage of special highway values. You should not expect data consumers to know implicit rules. My first idea reg. "social trail" was that it describes some kind of teaching while walking ;-)

Not sure if I got this right (I'm a German).
Does that mean that a "social trail" should not be used because it maybe disturbe animals or destroy soemthing else?

okay, damit willst also sagen, dass Du die Örtlichkeiten auch nur "von oben" kennst, richtig ? Ich sehe nämlich aktuell keinen
nennenswerten Widerspruch zum Luftbild.

please explain:
why do you use highway=social_path ?
I'd prefer highway=path and maybe other attributes like access=private or social=yes (whatever that means) or a note that explains why the ways are special.

okay, thanks for the feedback.

sorry, mir geht es um die Wege 54563551,345233068 und 345233065.
Hätte eigentlich dabei stehen sollen :-(

Please explain:
why did you change the highway tag (again) to highway=historic ?
If the way is still in use I think it should be tagged with the corresponding highway
tag + historic=highway

please review:
I've changed the rarely used highway=stairway to highway=steps

please review:
the tag highway=tour is rather unusal
and doesn't inform about the used vehicle. It is also not understood by the renderer.
The comment mentions a "mountain footpath",
so I assume they are all highway=path
See
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
Please try to provide more info, e.g. if bicycle traffic is allowed.