Hi,

This area was or is still used as an annex from a construction site to store material, park vehicles, etc... For quite a long time in the town of Tuntange there have been some constructions going on, a new neighbourhood, repairs from floods...

I can't remember exactly how i ended up using this value. As far as I can remember, there was no documentation for this specific case at the time i tagged it, neither now there is none proposed yet. I had also searched in Tag Info.

Hope this helps.

Hello Frisse_pint! The bridge does not exist yet, it's due for 2028. Constructions haven't started yet. OSM map should reflect what reality is therefore contributors should map every feature according what is on the ground presently by using the correct element and tag (see OSM Wiki if needed). Please, keep in mind this fundamental notion for future contributions. Thanks for your comprehension! :)

Bonsoir Bernard, tu parles d'un track grade4 que j'ai ajouté il y a cinq ans et ce en plein hiver lorsqu'il y a beaucoup moins d'activité... Un grade 4 peut très vite être renaturalisé...

J’apprécierai que tu fasses une analyse plus profonde et pertinente avant de faire de tels commentaires, s'il te pait... Quelqu'un vient de l'utiliser pour essayer de me discréditer. Tu sais de qui je parle, nous en avons parlé face à face chez toi.

Je pensais que j'avais été clair sur mes contributions et à chaque fois j'ai pu te prouver leur existence alors que tu es passé à coté.

Oui des 2 cotés, ce qui confirme que tout ce chemin est aussi autorisé exceptionnellement pour les véhicules des riverains et fournisseurs. C'est un peu comme une route "living_street", les piétons peuvent y marcher légalement, les voiture aussi mais on ne va pas le tagger highway=path + motor_vehicle=yes + foot=designated. La pertinence du track, c'est pour éviter ce genre d'accident: https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/1900714.html

Je ne me souviens pas de tout ce dont on avait parlé. :) Il y a aussi le cas du chemin mixte piétons, cyclistes, cavaliers mais non autorisé aux véhicules motorisés. Dans ce cas, en effet, il vaut mieux utiliser highway=path pour rester neutre + foot + bicycle + horse. Je viens de voir qu'au Belval, il y a un débutant qui a changé récemment tous les trottoirs en footway. Du coup on ne voit plus qu'ils sont autorisés aussi aux cyclistes et il a aussi dupliqué la piste cyclable le long de la Rue Marie Curie à Esch.

Une astuce pour éviter que les grosses routes cachent les pistes cyclables parallèles: mettre layer=1 (ou valeur supérieure) sur la piste comme ici osm.org/way/1104053956

Et meilleurs voeux pour une bonne année! :)

Salut m sartor!

Ce ne sont pas les barrières qui indiquent les droits légaux d'un chemin et donc son utilisation/type et elles peuvent être ouvertes, ce sont les panneaux de signalisation. Dans ce cas, le C2 est du côté W. Il indique que l’accès est interdit dans les deux sens aux conducteurs de véhicules et d’animaux à l’exception des riverains (propriétaires, locataires), de leurs fournisseurs et exceptions via modèle 5a (panneau blanc en dessous).

https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/route/20230708

Au delà de ça, c'est vrai que ce panneau n'est pas toujours présent mais on voit bien que le chemin est trop étroit ou il y a un énorme block, etc...

Je ne t'avais pas déjà expliqué?

Hello! These changes have been done by a user with whom i have problems. He did likewise wide country unjustified changes in Luxembourg and deleted a lot of data that I've personally surveyed again and still exists.

It's been an issus since 2021 where i hoped that some DWG moderators would have solved quickly but no real conclusion was ever done and no definitive block was ever made in order to stop him. Now I have strong believes that he continues under the account of Kugelbaum because this user was created right after the previous account named ltwo was terminated, he started to contribute in the city where the person lives and clearly has some tagging schemes/combos not coming from a beginner.

Today, I've been trying to expose all these issues in this post in OSM's forum. Please feel free to write down there the problem you encountered here.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problem-with-vandalism-and-2-dwg-members/107298

Long time i haven't passed there. If the ways are for forestry vehicles even with logs (unless there are shrubs that have grown on the way), indeed track is more relevant and tracktype=grade5 expresses very rough ways with very loose (rolling material) soft (mud, sand) or dense grasses. Keep in mind that grade5 is the worst, there is no grade6. :) It can be subjective and variable depending of external factors so usually if someone is mistaken by one grade I think we can stay open minded. For example a track having a surface with dirt not used very often can be prone to become a grade5 made of mud if it rains but if its driven often and very hard compacted in summer it can be considered a grade3.

For the logs, if they can prevent passage for forestry vehicles, which are usually specialised 4WD vehicles, I'd suggest to add barrier=log. Again can be variable, a small trunk 15cm thick on direct contact with the ground no, but if it is suspended high, yes. If there are multiple preventing passage but the way can roughly still be used for any reason, add few barrier=log tags spaced by a certain distance to express there a re a few logs, no need to add all of them (copy/paste helps going faster). If they recover completely the way that it becomes even very hard for a pedestrian to use it, you can add access=no (cannot physically go through it). Cut the way if it's only aportion. Possibly foresters have done it in purpose. See
osm.wiki/Key:access#Introductory_examples

Example of grade5 with some small logs but no need to add barrier=log since they don't prevent passage
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Y9mpFcb4kvmWl4mJAsyZ2mnL7Tj0D0S

Hope this helps! Anyway, you're welcome!

The restored elements are w172583370, w420004133, w832902059, w420004109, w1019398512, w1019398513, w172583386, w318715231, w1004371068, w420274443, w1004371067, w854051577, w119909434, w1019398520, w1019398489

Also, use more relevant descriptive changesets, please. You deleted these but they are not mentioned in the changeset.
Please read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#How_should_I_write_Changeset_Comments?

Hi again!

Why did you delete so many elements whereas they are clearly visible?
Scrub 854051577
Tracks 1004371068 172583386 1004371067 832902059 etc...

Hi,

I noticed that you often delete elements and replace them with a new one expressing the having the exact same tags and the exact same position. That is considered bad practice. There are good reasons to keep the history if the feature exists.
Example on this changeset:
You deleted osm.org/way/808839583/history
and replaced by
osm.org/way/1208535585/history

Some other changesets where you do the same and i know there are many more:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/130455883
https://osmcha.org/changesets/137309901

I will restore all deleted elements.

In order to understand and maybe give you a solution, can you explain us why you do this, please?
Please write in here, for full transparency.

Hi KBLux! Good to see you back on OSM.

I noticed you added the surface as "wood" for some paths. This value is intended for wood planks installed usually on structures, walkway planks, etc so inherently not natural, considered as a "paved" surface somehow flat and not loose. There is also the value "woodchips" made of relatively tiny pieces (chips) of wood or bark. Subjectively/arguably, I'd say can be also expressed for multiple pieces of natural chopped branches. Foresters put these on tracks to avoid too much erosion of the ground and other reasons. Wouldn't use it though for hole large branches/trunks which can rather be considered as barrier=log.

Anyway, more info here: osm.wiki/Key:surface on each dedicate page for the value.

First things first, how come you keep blindly demanding explanations in my change sets whereas I haven't done anything bad but you don't even contact a vandal making unobjective deletions on existing elements?

I found out also interesting the fact you treat unfairly other contributors, like Mariotomo who cares about quality, confirmed by several other contributors here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/andy-townsend-acaba-de-enviarme-un-bloqueo/92565/3
and
osm.org/user/mariotomo/diary/396109#comments
Or even though a contributor is acting awkwardly, you don't insult with "arsehole", like you did here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-edits-in-italy/97706/48
And as several people pointed out, the DWG lacks transparency. Clearly your moderation lacks consistency, it doesn't seem following a honourable code of conduct and you really like taking advantage of the privileged position you have. It's really disreputable for your image and the DWG!

About this CS, I'm going to teach your SomethingElse, just like the other time you didn't know about the tag "created by Reverter". Nature lives, it changes, there are multiple factors why a trail might not be anymore usable or even just not easily visible (in this case "trail_visibility" should rather be applied): dead leaves on the ground, overgrown vegetation (some high grasses disappear depending on season though) or in the opposite someone will decide to resurrect it, and a faint trail in nature is subjective...
I have the right to add a fixme=resurvey, just for myself. I do trust the contributor though since I did not reactivate it. As for the reasons for life-cycling an element, see OSM's Wiki.

Most were answered, thanks!

I had wondered how to express complex 3D cliffs on 2D. Sometimes certain portions are not vertical but are certainly steep and we could slip down, therefore dangerous, other cliffs are stepped with various heights. There is a discussion in the Wiki trying to classify this complexity without finding a clear guideline. I just want to express a dangerous drop or impossible to walk on terrain for people making sports in nature, afraid of heights or simply interested in a mountainous landscape. My method:
- any natural drop roughly higher than a human
- if complex, I try to make a pseudo 3D, a cliff at the top to express where it drops and at the bottom to express how far it extends.
- on large aretes I'd rather use also cliffs with opposite parallels (top of mountains) or stepped down depending of shape (going down valleys)
- i would skip the bottom one if I feel that it's not really useful, to not overwhelm the map.
Note: I used to draw when I was younger, so I do know how to interpret/express 3D on 2D, some of my sketches:
https://scontent.flux3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.18172-8/1957713_10151981907588317_91383256_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=174925&_nc_ohc=zkpdnGZcY2AAX-uYU8f&_nc_ht=scontent.flux3-1.fna&oh=00_AfAuBQhDqQxfMhFgbZlqggTvhVMZqbm_YRU67C6pVrNFhA&oe=652CD74D
https://scontent.flux3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/377572904_10159715819623317_7605222635013496900_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=1b51e3&_nc_ohc=2RGa6hWSvgkAX8Z0EqZ&_nc_ht=scontent.flux3-1.fna&oh=00_AfD-jBgaZAwqopa8KJCT5giuGKChgYPuPHQLY0BMGKpLlg&oe=650B48E0

This CS I reverted was beyond "smoothening". Some were deleted, others rather shaped to an almost straight curved line. That's not how the cliffs are shaped. Would you straighten a street or delete it because it is too curvy? Certainly not! I suggested dpolovinkin to change of Garmin map or edit the TYP if he is overwhelmed by the cliffs during his rides. What I would call "smoothening" is like I experienced with Stereo some years ago (yes there are others who create cliffs like I do). I saw that he got carried by his great LIDAR resource (thanks again, great rendering). We discussed because he had gone around every corner of each rock on CS osm.org/changeset/83742481 and found out it is overkill. After discussion I had lowered the number of nodes via CS osm.org/changeset/97227996 The overall shape was respected and none was deleted.

As for communication, I agree that it is important to cooperate and being respectful. But I cannot trust anymore someone with lied about his observations or ignores an issue. That's when I'm no more inclined to talk with that person. Being fooled once or twice is enough, I'm no masochist.

Hi! You self-intersected a way, this creates routing errors. osm.org/way/232340477

+ name added

+ new elements

Bonjour! Bienvenu en tant que contributeur OSM.

S'il vous plait, veuillez donner un descriptif plus pertinent. Donner simplement le nom des alentours est déjà visible sur carte. Décrivez plutôt ce que vous avez fait avec les éléments de données. Voici des exemples: osm.wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications#Bons_commentaires

Cordialement,

Hey! Extra info if you haven't yet visited the site: the border is supposed to have 3 markers, one for each country on their own territory, that's why there were already 2. BE and LU are obvious, apparently the FR border is different in shape/material, not many people have seen it, its position is not know... So if you want to rise up the challenge, maybe try to survey it while you are there. I've added it in OSM but with a fixme.

And indeed there was is no difficulty for sure on that track. ;)