OK by "old style MP" you mean when the tags featuring the area are actually on the outer way instead of being in the relation. So a MP being the inner of another MP and sharing the same ring is totally possible. Really i was not seeing the point in creating another ring to represent the same perimeter. Thanks will correct it!

This brings up a question about another
type of situation i'd like to ask you. Let's imagine a MP forest which has inner elements like fields, areas of scrubs, a lake with an tiny island, etc... and the entire forest, inner elements included are part of a natural reserve. I guess it's still OK to use leisure=natural_reserve on the outer of the MP just to avoid creating an extra way, right? It would really be a waste of time creating it and add superfluous data.

I already had communicated often with wilda69, i know he has difficulties to handle MP. I think this fact is because he contributes with Potlatch, the interface is really cumbersome and outdated.

Hello! Please be careful with the edits you do osm.org/node/7823516806/history
Thanks for the comprehension! :)

Hi!Has this been discussed somewhere? I still get a "duplicate way" error and logically yeah it's 2 ways for the same feature. Personally i don't see the point.

By the way, you had left a also a duplicated natural=water on the outer and inner. Basically you just copied one of the ways and made it smaller, which is not really clean either, so I corrected.

Thank you for your answer! Enjoy your mappings!

OK! I asked you because i have access to the Lidar Hillshade scan of the surface terrain and as i haven't seen the other end of the way i checked it there but did not see any shrinking on its width.

Hi! Thanks for your reply! I've put it in grade 2. I've seen on many occasions that normally any service road can also be in grade 2. But i don't mind one or the other in this case, so just left it as track grade 2.

Since you've been recently in that area, can i ask you as a third part person if this road osm.org/way/666959102 is accessible to motorized vehicles, please? At the moment i am discussing with another user who asked me why i changed the road in service. I replied that some years ago i wanted to pass there with my car but i had seen the B0 signal (red circle around white background = traffic prohibited) on these locations : osm.org/node/330003528/
and osm.org/node/7079882024/
It's possible that this changed recently but he asked me so i don't think he knows for sure. If you neither don't know, nevermind. :)

corrected link osm.org/way/835212290/

Also a section from a track, you've put as path osm.org/way/835212290/h
Is that way now really only accessible for pedestrians and other small means (cyclists, horses...)? My guess is that you've put it as path because bushes or other woody vegetation has grown.

Hello! Are you sure this way osm.org/way/29975902 is not rather a service road instead of the unmaintained "track grade1"? It was rather well maintained some years ago. Also the castle Schüttbuerg is inhabited and there is no parking spot for the residents before that way, so logically the way should be well enough accessible and is rather a service road (but not a driveway since there are still other ways connected after it).

+ new elements

Sorry forgot...
osm.wiki/Key:motor_vehicle

or "motor_car=no" if motorcycles are allowed.

Hi! "vehicle" includes bicycles, so the right key would rather be "motor_vehicle", also you forgot to add "bicycles=yes" or "=designated"

+ new elements

+ new elements

Very nice of you to not care about what other users comment in your changesets... osm.org/changeset/74260249
OK...

Hi! Obviously you are new and totally are wrong on how to use tags according their definition. I noticed this area: osm.org/way/169277043/
It was a parking spot and correct but you changed it for a leisure=park, which clearly is not what's on the location. So i would suggest you to read the first steps tutorial for new users and check OSM's Wiki when you want to contribute elements and tags corresponding to a certain feature in reality. Please correct it as it was, in amenity=parking. Thanks for your comprehension!

+ new elements

not route enhancements, rather positions enhancements

+ tags corrected