It is OK when most of the elements are wrong. The contributor even displaced the country's borderland. Even if it's just a few meters, i find this being a serious mistake. Though as i said in my changeset, it was not a full revert, i kept the tag changes and some railway network enhancements. There are still some errors from previous contributors dating from 2014 (name mistake). I already dedicate my time in correcting many errors, so it's legit i try to use the easiest method to restore accurate data.

Even if i used the revert, it doesn't mean I'm in conflict with the contributor. I do have faith and realise his edits were done with good intent. Though the mistakes were done and someone needed to correct them.

I warned him, explained him how I identified the errors and informed him of more precise sources in our country.

It's funny how once again when we compare the efforts of moderation done over me with the ones done over tomolobla, the DWG didn't care that he lied to me in saying that the features didn't exit anymore and didn't care about much data being deleted, whereas i told woodpeck that they do and i've proven they do exist. He was just so full of himself to admit he was wrong afterwards i presented him the proofs. On your side, you let yourself being influenced by past moderation from a moderator who possibly has some qualities but has also big flaws, doesn't admit them and couldn't present a conclusion with an investigation although there are two DWG members in Luxembourg.

Hi! I was well aware there was still a problem with this building after my intervention but the previous contributor to my edits hadn't the geometry correct (the overall structure was not right and the inner was not showing up). I did the changes by having the usual building structure as MP and having the building:part elements simply overlapping inside it, one of these being a MP to have the empty hole as inner) Still it was not rendered... Not sure why...

So if I understand correctly, you deleted all building:part elements (2 polygons and 1 MP), removed the "buildingpart" links to the main MP and kept the basic MP relation, right. Tell me if i'm wrong.

Which means that you actually deleted the specific attributes to each building part. Why? Do the building:part structures not work in relations?

What's your problem? I'm not your slave! I've already explained above why i think it's a valid track and given you links to photos and external third part sources who state it as a valid usable way too! If you're too lazy to read, that's not my fault!

Anyway, I went check today to have a fresh survey. Here are my own new photos :
- direction to N, there is only one fallen trunk but this happens often depending of weather and if trees are weakened, an authorized 4x4 vehicle can pass over it, horses also as i explained above, they like large soft terrain https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tvNQP9QXMrlU_IJNJjBA9nQBY1wm-_ih
- direction to S to the crossroad with my car as size reference in the back to show that a 4 wheeled vehicle can pass
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X5M_fTc6o1U17qo_pVBYeqQZ69fb41Tr
- proof of relatively recent erosion of a vehicle https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZNDe39d7jzAXS-HhweLz5wYG3sB5ULZ
- someone added fine gravel at the entrance of the track, it's even after the entrance of the single trail going above the cutting (to the right of the photo), so it was not only added for the path https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nuQ_3PvAE1_D7KzSN55FWjjeP9rL5Ii/
- official board from authorities warning of frequent fallen branches/trunks because of weakened trees, as i explained you here above it may happen but it doesn't mean that the way isn't anymore usable or forbidden: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x2eFZ5sWSsKAA6CmYv9i6KWSKysEQ6hX

I am vandalizing the community? Concretely how??? Wow i must have some "amazing pseudo psycho-influence" via internet. Hilarious! It's strange though that other people contact me (i have given the names of recent contributors) to ask me my opinion and/or advice.

Back to the track, you said it yourself, you haven't read all my text. The proofs are written/shared there though with photos, third part post in Facebook and other professional maps. You're ridiculing yourself!

You haven't read all... Right, how respectful to contributors and great fake excuse to ignore my defence. Since you're taking it that way, I'll take further steps...

Now to backup your claim instead of making empty nonsense communication, you should list a handful examples of data in question and provide also evidence from the terrain (photos, videos, GPS data, etc...) to prove i vandalize data.

PS: the previous contributors from the track I talked about are in this way osm.org/way/71029920/history
You need to revert the changeset 108206240 from the vandal in your editor in order to see how it was plotted previously. Revert further in the past if needed.

Now about the way in question, in general, the aspects available to recognize a track on terrain are the erosion, interconnection needs in the way network, free space for passage between elements, ground shaping. Our track 965429633, meets the following: interconnection in network, free space for passage (even though there are few fallen branches or logs (but this happens often after strong winds and this should be expressed in OSM with a barrier feature) and ground shaping with its large cutting. Last time I checked it, it didn't have significant erosion and according previous tags, that's why I've put it as tracktype=grade5. Most tracks in natural areas lack human made structure and layout to make less human impact to the environment. Therefore they are prone to renaturalization, like growing vegetation, dead leaves or fallen trunks hiding the erosion, etc. The more degraded, the faster naturalized. Ways in such areas are in constant evolution and may enter a period of disuse for lack of interest, or need but it may be used by few pedestrians attracted by the beauty of untouched nature, horse riders (horses like soft surfaces and large passages) or in the future for forestry vehicles (trees will certainly be cut one day). Did you ever notice a lift barrier on an overgrown track? That's what I mean. Should we delete such track? Not at all, obviously it is a way but restricted to be used by quads, and other off-road vehicles. When not obvious anymore, like there are small shrubs, high vegetation, etc. I totally agree to remove it from the map. But here it's clearly recognizable!
As proof of recognition by other people, there is this post on Facebook talking about the history of this way https://www.facebook.com/Janescube/posts/353281240017925 If you don't have access to FB here are some of the photos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jak9dmXrJ4Y4l9NQQPcg_p82lExi631r
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hgtAI4psSaYcvdIIKMUh22sAEpnZWdHw
In extra, it has been existing since long a time, see this official old map https://drive.google.com/file/d/119hIq5X-VU6Mw-BOrHBLpNZXiOSdimPc
This track can also be found on Waze : https://www.waze.com/en/live-map/directions?latlng=49.81287171491718%2C6.193928718566895
And on Geoportail.lu : http://g-o.lu/3/dY3p
There are also the previous contributors who think it was a highway! I'm not even the original creator! I just reactivated it after the vandal!

Also for the sake of a faithful map from reality and orientation, if there is only the path in OSM, a tourist who doesn't know at all the region will have to do more guesses and on the location it may confuse the large track, since it is not used often, with the parallel single trail over the cutting. Apparently sometimes the track is muddy, this is why the side path has been created for a nicer passage.
So now explain me why one inexperienced mapper (possibly totally ignorant) should be trusted above several other contributors who clearly can identify this way and even professionals who provide other maps?

About the armchair mapping, everybody does armchair mapping but if I ever find a highway thanks to online sources, first I correlate with other sources to see if it is worth, afterwards I go on terrain to check it. I record many of my out-door activities, take many photos and take many notes: https://www.strava.com/athletes/22654751
Are you really impartial? The admins from Luxembourg Stereo and dmlu have also been tagging highways without any local survey:
Stereo in osm.org/changeset/84696199 with elements osm.org/way/800395063/history (building doesn't exist anymore, no ruins at all) osm.org/way/800395067/history
dmlu osm.org/changeset/102231788 with osm.org/way/191319880/history which i was astonished he reactivated at v4, even though I had added a clear note at v2.
So, for the sake of fairness, would you also mind blocking them to apply some impartiality?
Please, let me know when you've done so, if not... How hypocrite, right!

If I'm wrong because someone proved it, it's fair to block me. I can question myself. This what happened 6 years ago when I was trying to ease my contributions while I was on the iD editor for beginners thanks to MPs. I changed this! But on the 3 previous and your block, it is not justified! So spare me your argument about the blocks I've received!

OSM's guidelines say that contributors should communicate before with each other in the rise of a disagreement. I've not been contacted previously by anyone about this way in question. That's poor cooperation! Who are these persons or is there rather only one person? On my side, you should know that I have proof of the existence of this way via photos and know other persons who think it is a usable way. I will explain here below.

About bullying, read the definition: "A person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable"! The vandal was not vulnerable at all and I was not trying to harm him but only proving that he was degrading the data! Before the issue had arisen, I even helped him on several occasions in order for him to provide better data, like I've done with many other contributors (recently danny__kay, MTCarrasco, m sartor, clawfire...). I wanted to bring attention on tomolobla to make other contributors aware of the problem because the DWG ignored it and you keep ignoring it! The bullies here are yourselves because you are taking advantage of you position over me and blocking arbitrarily over and over and forcing me to go back on terrain to prove myself I'm not crazy! This can't go on!

Really??? You give me a block while asking me the evidences of this track, therefore before any real objectivity. It was already the same with my previous 3 blocks given by woodpeck, which you are bringing back on the table on your last block. They all concerned the same issue: proving and restoring deleted valid data by the vandal tomolobla (now referenced as user_3961358, uid="3961358") AKA Capslock_Cleaner (user_13908570, uid="13908570") whereas I've proven they still exist with photos, videos, Mapillary posts, GPS data, etc. On the DWG's side, after a year none of you haven't made yet a third part investigation as promised to shed light and therefore solve the issue. So in the end, how you the DWG use your blocks and moderate are totally arbitrary, gratuitous and unfair. That's so unserious! The only explanation I find for you not having given any final investigation is that you realized afterwards you were wrong and ashamed of the unfair moderation you gave me after I provided several proofs of existence on tens of ways deleted! You literally failed as a group via several persons even though woodpeck was possibly the only one in charge of the ticket but the moderators from Luxembourg should have been involved by the conflict for the sake of the data in our region! I had also contacted you because I was really desperate but you never gave a real opinion about the deleted data. On my side, I only got stress, wasted time and money for going back on terrain because I do have a sense of self-questioning. The only satisfaction I got is that I know now I am right and some of the data in OSM has been restored but lots has been lost because of the DWG inaction! Again is that serious and respectful work!? Not at all!
Frederick Ramm AKA woodpeck acted like a totalitarian and incompetent moderator. Examples:
- another contributor loukote had found and confirmed a way which was removed by tomolobla but woodpeck kept ignoring the obvious and kept defending the vandal avidly (see note osm.org/note/2770137 ).
- he is also an ignorant adviser in terms of tag definitions. See about smoothness=impassable here osm.org/changeset/89202209 , service=driveway here osm.org/changeset/112003827 and compare with OSM's Wiki definitions. He fails on both!

+ deleted bridges, the other ways crossing are rather tunnels

Je n'en avais pas l'intention. Je voudrais juste savoir pour le tronc d'arbre couché.

+ merged equal elements

Bonjour! Est-ce que le tronc d'arbre couché est toujours situé ici osm.org/node/5252882195 ?

+ access corrected on track near park

+ MP desintegration

Agree! I was going to explain him that a search engine would do the job, no need to create relations which would certainly be not updated.

+ sac_scale corrected

Hello! About this way: osm.org/way/405395258 Please, do not judge for someone else if a way is dangerous or not. That is totally a subjective matter as it depends on someone's skills and body constitution. I've done it countless times and I even know seniors who walked it very easily without thinking it as dangerous.

The access tags are used on matters of ACCESS obviously, not how difficult it is. For hiking purposes, the sac_scale key is used. Paradoxically you've added it with the lowest level of hiking difficulty. Where is the logic? The right value is rather mountain_hiking. So you've been totally misleading people for one month whereas the way is accessible. Please, avoid! FYI osm.wiki/Key:sac_scale

I hope you realise to never ever put again a way as inaccessible just for a subjective matter. I've corrected the way.

Regards,

+ access updated/corrected