No waaay, really?! Just kidding, i believe you. 🙂osm.org/way/448361730 I've added it 4 years ago and last time i checked it was 2 years ago. Time passed, had totally forgotten to plot the steps, 9 months ago had started to enhance accuracy, today (after your contact though) thanks to the LH i've been reminded to plot it correctly+steps.

For the grade1 which one(s)? Usually it's local survey or other resources as Geoportail's Topo, Mapillary and alikes... Though, a grade1 with time to time rare loose material, like holes or other degradations I still plot it as grade1, it's more releavant IMO. Grade2 only when constantly almost hard with some loose. Also sometimes i noticed some people recorded grade4 tracks whereas under the thin layer of dirt it's grade2. I recall even someone mistakenly recorded surface=dirt with grade1 track. My guess: the contributor didn't realise the dirt is temporarily spread by tractors. Some days of rain and puts the road back with bare asphalt. Again, temporary feats should not be recorded in OSM.

OK for the signs, i hope they are official. Remember what i told you in our email about this residence privatising illegally some forest roads by blocking with chains and signs. Outrageous!

I understand a bigger name is better but tag wise it's really not not right. Locality have sometimes a link to historical facts, nothing to do with the woods/forests. That's really misleading. I don't want to be extreme though, in some situations i find the key name to be useful to input a brief description of a feature. I know many contributors who do this even though it is considered as a bad practice. The problem is that most services rely mostly on the rasterizing of the map, so no description from the data key "description".

+ merged equal elements

Hi!

Seriously? I thought by now that it was clear i don't contribute with guesses. Depends which feature you are talking about... Some are personal knowledge, others are obvious on resources available, others are just new because i detail a way in different sections like when a track grade1 becomes a grade3 for example, or a footway and steps, those are new. As said in the past i don't want to mislead people and neither be misleaded myself since I do use the map. The only times i may be mistaken is when i see something new, record it in OSM and the next days i check it. If invalid, i delete of course. I ride mountain biking, this allows me to survey a lot even in nature.

On your hand... You should not name woods or forests from a locality. Those are names that are part of the place itself. Definitely not a wood like when it is named "Schleedbesch". Schack or "Klenge Schack" are not names of woods, they ware localities.

Also an embankment is not a just a slope, it's supposed to be man made, hence the key man_made. Classic example i do would be the slope of covered reservoirs or Tumulus sites. Those are clearly not natural. You had made the slope fo a hill as embankment, a hill is not man made. hence why i deleted it.

For the privacy of this way osm.org/way/121108807/ I'm really wondering if it's fully private because:
- part of the way is in a neutral zone, no parcel, so very likely part of the grass can be used as a public beach.
- part of it was wrong, meaning it was going over a retaining wall.
- campings usually do not privatise their ways because of hikes, attracting clients, etc.
But doubtfully i've let it private anyway, waiting for a confirmation.

You've still not corrected the mistakes you've introduced and i warned you about and even gave you the tools to spot them. Please correct them first before contributing other features.

Hi! For this way osm.org/way/941823996 which was part of this one
osm.org/way/43485086/ did you want to plot a single narrow trail or a wide track? In this last case, it does not correspong to what the Mapper's Delight Lidar Hillshade shows. I have other sources that suggest there might be a path nearly parallel to that track. Your input would help...

Bonjour! Selon votre commentaire de changeset, vous confirmez que le site accueille des gens du voyage. Vous êtes en train de changer le tag "tourism=camp_site" en "landuse=residential" + le sous-tag "residential=halting_site", ce qui est faux pour le landuse=residential parce que les gens de voyage sont par définition des nomades et donc n'ont pas de résidence. Une résidence est un lieu d'habitation dit permanent ou avec une certaine constante dans le temps. Les deux sont clairement en opposition. OSM utilise des balises "key=value" dont chacune a une signification précise (vérifiable sur le Wiki d'OSM) sinon on perd toutes les références et cela induira en erreur tous les utilisateurs.

J'ai recherché dans le Wiki d'OSM, quelqu'un a enregistré le sous-tag mais je parierai que cela a été fait individuellement sans un consensus mutuel de la communauté d'OSM. J'ai entamé une discussion dans la partie correspondante du sous-tag et effacé cette valeur qui induit en erreur. Je vous avertit ici car il est fort probable que cette valeur sera dépréciée et vos changements seront en donc obsolètes.

Aussi j'avais mis un tag "fixme=still active?", OSM est un projet communautaire et donc une coopération est souhaitée si vous interagissez. Vous auriez pu l'enlever tout de même... Merci de votre compréhension!

+ merged equal elements

Hi!
Are the ways near the castle only for bicycles or shared with other motorized vehicles even if they are only for private use?

Bonjour! Est-ce qu'il y a une raison pour avoir créé les Ardennes en multipolygone (MP) alors qu'il n'y qu'un seul élément (le polygone outer)? Le but des MP est de joindre plusieurs éléments en une seule entité sinon un simple polygone (area) suffit.

As i said on fields there might be no real visible way but there must be a means to access the way in the woods, even if it is blocked by a trunk at a certain point (which happens often for whatever reason in the woods). Also note that the blocked way is although drawn in Geoportail.lu Topo, so it doesn't go up there without any reason. When i wrote "through the field" on my previous comment, it is not actually in the middle of it, actually it's in between 2 parcels (before represented by the hedge you mentioned, which can suggest that it's a servitude access to the woods and field behind and further.

You deleted that portion but it is just like this other way here also not visible at all because of grass and also not present on Geoportail.lu Topo connecting the trail: osm.org/way/835086978 There are people who use it and it is possibly useful for urgency matters. Though that one you didn't delete it? What's the difference for you for not having deleted it?

About Geoportail.lu Topo as a reference, it's not a trustful resource anymore because it's outdated/misses features and has errors. I've put countless notes in OSM warning for this.

Kind regards, S

and self intersection area, new elements, yada yada yada...

Hi! Yeah, the problem is that in some 3rd part services access=private/no are not shown in their map. This misleads users, specially when the ways connect other public parts. I know we should not erase elements just for rendering reasons but there is no other way to solve this issue if those 3rd parts do not change their system. Since those private ways are not accessible to public anyway, I thought it wouldn't hurt anyone in general.

Hello! Why did you remove a portion of this way on the eastern side? osm.org/way/39456295
Even though there might be no trace because grass or even crops has grown (it happens frequently when farmers do not care), there is a "virtual" access to reach the way in the woods through the field.

+ new guide posts

Hello D! You created this relation but it's empty. Is it a work in progress or can it be deleted? osm.org/relation/12343876
Have a nice weekend!

new elements, tags added/corrected, positions enhanced

Bonsoir!
Bien venu sur OSM en tant que contributrice. Je me permet de vous contacter car cela va faire la 2e fois que je tombe sur vos changements récents erronés:
1) Vous avez brisé la continuité du parcours de randonnée osm.org/relation/1904106 (voir au dans les environs de Villers-la-Chèvre). Ce parcours est inclus dans une relation, donc vous avez enlevé la relation sur chacune des routes par où passe ce parcours, il faudrait donc remettre cette relation sur ces routes. je vous laisse le faire comme ça vous pourrez vous entraîner. Si vous avez besoin d'aide ou explications, vous pouvez me contacter via la messagerie.
2) Vous avez effacé des lignes railway=abandoned / railway=disused pour mettre à la place la nouvelle piste cyclable. Ne les effacés pas car ils représentent parfois une valeur culturelle, voir historique. D'ailleurs très souvent des anciennes lignes ferroviaires sont réaménagés en une autre infrastructure ou simplement un passage vert. Ce que vous auriez dû faire c'est de reprendre le chemin ferroviaire, readapter les anciens tags (lisez le Wiki d'OSM si besoin) et ajouter les nouveaux tags. Pour ces éléments effacés, je m'en occuperai moi même.

Bonne continuation!

The specificity of this service way osm.org/way/23925793 is not a driveway, which normally is the very last way leading to a feature/property/busines/etc, hence why it is rendered smaller by OSM's carto layer and disappear when zoomed out farther because not deemed to be useful on bigger scales and so avoid a too complex mapped network. This is a driveway osm.org/way/914465926 I've corrected. Kewl, in a few days after updated rendered map, you should see it better from farther zoom levels.

Hello! This way osm.org/way/27597677 is not private, it's only forbidden to non autorised vehicles. You should have noticed the multiple public hiking routes passing over it.

Also, about this way osm.org/way/914454581 Thank you for having done the updates but previously you had it set incorrectly as a footway (originally this was the way osm.org/way/179310119 ). It's not primarily dedicated for pedestrians but by viewing how large and how shaped it is, in its essence it's rather a track accessible for authorised specific vehicles (forestry, agricultural, etc even if vary rarely) and then also pedestrians, cyclists, horses... So it would have been nice of you to use the correct tag so that it doesn't mislead people in case they are new to the area. ;)

I've corrected all of them. I hope you understand that i am commenting not to blame you but in the hope you realise it's better to have a map that we can trust.

Hello! I know user kewl and he rides really a lot, even every day. So it is very possible that he was on site.

For the tag bicycle=yes, some people use it as a confirmation, hence why he wrote "emphasised cycling access" in his CS comment. In a way this can be seen as redundant since most paved roads allow bicycles, but service roads are kind of multi-purpose in terms of access since they are out of the normal road network. I think you should upload back the edits but there might be a few conflicts though since i've found out about this CS while i was trying to figure out some previous edits (here osm.org/node/6091008744).

Hi! Here is another kind of mistake to avoid: creating single member relation, more specifically in your case a single member MultiPolygon/MP which is by essence a simple polygon represented by a closed way. Relations are only created to gather together at least 2 elements into one entity to represent a unique identity and also to separate complex areas in MP having inner areas (you recognise these with the tag type=multipolygon inside the relation), which in terms of data do not add each other in reality. Example for a MP: a field all surrounded by a forest, if there would be no relation MP it would mean that the forest is also over the field.

Which brings me correcting about your MPs you created, such as your park with the inner playground elements, in real these inners are virtually part of the park, so there is no need to create a MP. I've corrected the square but I let you correct the rest so that you can train yourself manipulate these elements with your favorite editor, iD apparently. Basically you just need to transfer the tags from this relation osm.org/relation/12385522 to this outer way osm.org/way/472289697 and finally delete the relation, do not just delete the tags. If you need help, you can contact me.