You actually reverted 24 residential roads back to service. I've fixed this now, but next time please make sure you leave them all out.

Ok, jeg undrede mig bare over brugen af "rural" i noget der så afgjort er bymæssig bebyggelse. Studerede lige wikien og taginfo og kan se det åbenbart er en russisk opfindelse. Måske derfor. Jeg ville nok have foretrukket at bruge low-/high-rise i stedet.

No path/road should ever overlap another path/road. In case of a signed route/MTB route or similar a route relation osm.wiki/Routes should be used. See example here: osm.org/relation/3630640

Hvad er meningen med residential=rural? (som du har tagget mindst 2 beboelsespolygoner med)

It seems that the landuse=residential polygon around Øster Lyng/Rørvig somehow disappeared. Can't quite figure out how and when that happened though.

The revert btw is osm.org/changeset/33450935

I agree that maybe I should have given you more time to respond, but so many of my colleagues said "just revert", so I decided to do just that, rather than wait for your response. There were a few other changes which you may want to recreate.
I have mapped a bit for osm.wiki/Hot in various countries in which roads like these most certainly would be considered residential. So what you may be usually doing in your part of the world, isn't necessarily better or more correct than what we're doing in Denmark.
From now on please confer with the local community before reclassifying large numbers of roads like you did here.

Det er altid en rigtig god ide at hente friske data når det er er mere end en time siden du sidst har redigeret et område.

Efter at have kigget yderligere på hvad du har lavet og konstateret at du har ødelagt mere end godt er overvejer jeg stærkt at revertere dette rettesæt.

Jeg redigerede landuse=residential polygonen omkring Agtrup/Sdr Bjert ca kl 2 i nat (for 20 timer siden) og dette rettesæt ser ud til stort set at have reduceret min fine redigering tilbage til det gamle. Brugte du data fra i går da du redigerede videre i dag? Bemærk venligst at det oftest er en rigtig dårlig ide.

Please note that roads & paths need to be properly connected to other roads & paths (see pkt 5 in osm.wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.3.1)

Man må formode at disse stier udelukkende er beregnet til fodgængere. Dvs at hvis man ikke decideret arbejder på kirkegården må man ikke anvende cykler eller andre køretøjer, bortset fra måske barnevogne eller rullestole. Derfor vil jeg mene at footway er det korrekte at bruge her. Vejtyper klassificeres ikke efter underlaget, men efter anvendelse (cirka... det kan være noget forvirrende). Vi har jo masser af unclassified & residential både med og uden asfalt og i "tredje verdens lande" kan man finde masser af rene jordveje der er klassificeret som både secondary & primary fordi de faktisk er de primære færdselsårer mellem diverse byer/områder.

Thank you for converting to a route relation. I discovered your new edits due to some minor errors (this specific type of error seems to result from using Potlatch) showing up on http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=13.99626&lat=56.91787&zoom=17&overlays=single_node_in_way .
I have fixed these errors plus done further edits to Bergastigen plus some general clean up in the area.

Der kan med fordel bruges væsentligt færre noder end du gør her. Jeg siger dette fordi jeg nødigt vil se din praksis brede sig for meget. Mange af os kopierer lystigt OSM data frem og tilbage i forskellige sammenhænge og hvis din praksis her breder sig for meget ender det med at vi bliver nødt til at filtrere alle de her landuse (mm) polygoner ud for at filerne ikke skal blive for voldsomt store.

Polygons should not overlap or cross themselves anywhere. To fix this I've converted the lake around Egeskov to a multipolygon (see osm.wiki/Multipolygon)

Please note that coastlines are a special case and should not overlap anywhere (see osm.wiki/Coastline. I just had to fix Lilla/Stora Krokön. With named islands it may also be a good idea to add the tag place=island/islet (see osm.wiki/Tag:place=islet)

Denne revertering er sket efter konferering med folk dels på IRC og dels på den danske postliste

After conferring with the danish community I have decided to revert this.

According to danish convention all of these roads are actually considered residential, so I'll probably allow myself to revert this changeset

Weird that we're only just discovering this now. You included all of northern Jutland in this multipolygon, but Agger Tange actually comprises only the small peninsula south of Agger (In the Wikipedia article the red dot seen in the included map). I've reduced the multipolygon to on only include the actual Agger Tange in this [changeset](osm.org/changeset/33413918). Thank you