Did you have the chance to check if the beginning of this way is still roughly usable or its grade got worse? osm.org/way/758394313

Hi! As far as i can remember, doesn't the stone you created have an inscription or isn't it memorial ?

+ sidewalks added

upload to server was aborted...

By the way, myself i'm also a cyclist. I'm not trying to misinform people, rather i want everything accurate. In contrary you've tagged to render the ways as cycleways whereas they are also used to access fields.

If you want to see the entire cycling network i suggest you to switch to another map CyclOSM is good for that. Please in the future avoid misleading people. Thanks for your comprehension!

For your last comment, isn't it obvious that the farmers need access to their fields?! Hence why i've plotted the entrances to the fields to show other contributors that these ways are also used for accessing them.

Therefore it's a matter of relevance: a track can still be accessed to bicycles, in contrary cycleways are more specific, they cannot be accessed by tractors, horses, etc.

In terms of indication there is always the C3 sign with exceptions. Here is another proof. The fact that you changed it in cycleway despite the signs clearly demonstrates you made the changes without taking care of its access restrictions. https://goo.gl/maps/HUqZiK5KeHUtcKgi9

I've initiated a discussion with the community about your changes...

That's exactly what I've said: the way is shared between agricultural vehicles, emergency vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and sometimes even horse riders. For example this one osm.org/way/26380730
I know it's part of the official cycling network but there are also parts of that network that go on roads but we are most certainly not going to tag them as cycleways just because of your argument "it is part of the cycling network". I think you can agree with this.

So, since it is shared, we need to find the most relevant tag. In this case it is highway=track since it is not allowed to general traffic but allowed for agricultural, etc.

Also OSM's Wikipedia clearly states that it should not be used when "cycling infrastructure is an inherent part of a road" and when "Off-road and outdoor: Outside of cities and dense populated areas most cycling routes are mapped using highway=track when the way is also used by large motorized vehicles (agricultural, forestry, emergency vehicles...) or highway=path when not intended for motorized vehicles (rather pedestrians, horses...).

After all this, if you still disagree that such shared ways should be tagged as "track", can you explain me how other users such as emergency vehicles will be able to know that such way is usable for them in real in case of an emergency for a person who had an accident?

If the way would be blocked with unmovable barriers such as blocks, fixed bollards or cycle barriers, it clearly is restricted to other vehicles.

If you need an even more obvious example is when using highway=unclassified, implicitly it is a way for broader types of vehicles. Even though cyclists are allowed to use such way, we won't certainly tag it as a cycleway.

Hi! Why did you change the highway from track to cycleway?

I've plotted in purpose all entrances to fields to demonstrate OSM contributors that the way is also used by agricultural vehicles. Therefore it is more relevant to have it as a track than a cycleway since a track is more of a multi purpose way than a cycleway which is rather dedicated to cyclists, sometimes shared with pedestrians (then some prefer to tag the highway as path, also such way has great chances to be narrower). A bicycle can use a track but a tractor cannot use a cycleway/footway/path. The tag you've favored misleads people who would think they are safe on the way. If you haven't heard of this accident on the following link, it's a great example that we shouldn't mislead users of the map to think that the way is only for cyclists and therefore keep being cautious and accept sharing the way. https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/1900714.html

I've noticed that you've done this on other locations. Unfortunately, we will certainly need to revert those edits.

+ bicycle access corrected

+ new cliffs

+ surface added

I agree it is better to contact on changesets but it's not forbidden to contact via private message and it's not forbidden for any contributor to revert a changeset if the data has been tampered!

I won't shut up mister totalitarian!

People are vandals when they delete feature and LIED ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE!!! I've given evidence they did so when i had to prove that the features he deleted were still existing, this on tens of features!!! OK??? Do you understand???

I asked you where are their evidences of those people??? I want to see them! I want to see if you judged fairly or just assumed they were right, blocking me without even having seen evidence! And who are those people???

No it doesn't apply! I clearly unmasked a vandal, I proved it and I've created those fixme for the sole purpose to prove he was tempering countless data. In extra, woodpeck was wrong, and NONE OF YOU PROVIDED AN INVESTIGATION, NOT EVEN A RESPONSE!!! All goes AGAINST YOU!!! It's not because you are a DWG member that you are foolproof! I could have accepted a simple block when i was in conflict with tomolobla since he was blocked too, that was fair enough! But how I was treated forward was unfair, tomolobla could continue his vandalism whereas i had been blocked again even though i was authorised if i had been on terrain and I've given proofs of doing so. Woodpeck conveniently IGNORED them!!! How i have been treated and how you are treating me is inadmissible! I've been by far more cooperative that you!!!

So now since i'm talking to a wall who ignores facts, proofs, is harassing me and making favouritism too, i'm going to take steps forward!!!

The track is wide enough! I placed my car at the beginning of the track to clearly demonstrate that a 4 wheeled vehicle can pass, see on photos
20220404_170240.jpg and
20220404_170255.jpg !

What i did is rightfully delete the prefix tag from a vandal who likes to conceal features. Hence my big commentary. Previous several contributors from mine and his edits did plot it also as a track and kept editing it as a track. I've given you also several third part sources outside from OSM that consider it as a usable way! Not my problem if you ignore them and ignore the definition stated in OSM's Wiki!

How funny, as you just said now, we need to discuss, but they haven't contacted me, they directly contacted you. How civilised and cooperative is that!? Sounds like the advise you just gave me is rather for him/her/them!

I haven't seen the proofs of those "other contributors" you are pretending... So i demand also where are their proofs and what are the usernames from the people claiming this is not a track?

Yes you had answer, read my previous comment. What you're doing is harassment or do you have a short term memory? If this is the case, it's common behaviour to read what has been discussed already. Apparently you don't want, you keep contacting me and repeating, hence harassment! This is becoming a serious matter, Andy!

How: via message... obviously!

My comment was as simple as possible in order to defend myself and totally factual. I described facts that happened and there is data to prove it. I didn't write all that text by pure masochism.

So, don't tell me how i should express myself, as long as i don't insult people freely and/or i don't lie. I'm not that kind of person. I have the right to express myself as i see fit since I am concerned.

Here you go osm.org/changeset/119720052

Sounds like i'm teaching something new to a DWG member...

You are being fooled by a software... Because you see a note from JOSM that i've used the reverter doesn't mean i've reverted a changeset. Sorry to disappoint you... I just used the reverter to check why some changes have been done, possibly something was not looking logic, honestly i can't remember.

I can prove it to you... I'm going to create one single element on my next changeset, it will be a version 1, nothing else will be changed. Yet you will see the same note from JOSM. I will post it here in my next comment.

Merci! Sur le terrain et sans suivre de parcours spécifique, j'étais passé coté Est car celui de l'Ouest me semblait moins évident. Une fois devant les données d'OSM j'étais étonné de voir le GR15 coté Ouest. Je l'ai mis des 2 cotés alors, j'avais oublié d'ajouter le fixme.