This is why i am no more inclined to communicate with him*

Do you really think i want to answer you whereas you've been ignoring the multiple evidences i sent you in order to stop the vandalism done by tomolobla? You are still letting him total freedom even though he has been warned a month ago to not edit without survey on terrain and i've warned you on 5th/6th July he still deleting existing features, like on this recent changeset osm.org/changeset/106677682 for ways 286558407, 286558406, 286558405, proof on Mapillary, follow the sequence, GPS was erratic: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2604733593166987
proof filmed from node 3387900972 to node 2902420812 :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fJQlPX3erpI2eLtLCUc20grHfJMAaLG0/view
How legitimate and logic is your moderation? Or is it rather a form of favouritism because of some shady reason? I intend to unveil the truth on that because for me fairness is far more important that being able to contribute on OSM.

Nevertheless, here i'm not going to play the same sick game you've been on by ignoring me for more than a month. Obviously you haven't even checked if my tag change is relevant compared to the terrain which is covered by trees and bushes and in the Wiki there are only two kind of wetlands that have trees/bushes: swamp and mangrove, but this last one is a "salt-tolerant forest, forming along tropical coasts, similar to a swamp, but with seawater". At this date there are still trees, some eastern portions have been cut down though as seen on aerial photos. Hence my change to swamp instead of wet-meadow which is only "meadow saturated with water". In my opinion it would be better to detail each instead of gathering all under a wetland type but it's extra work and there are reasons which demotivated me from contributing further, obviously. I'm in contact with juminet, we've met several times and we have a true mutual respect. Later, I intend to write him in order to clear this up. By the way, the kind of respect tomolobla has no clue about since he didn't hesitate to lie to me (and us) and he had several other misbehaviours. This is why i was no more inclined to communicate with him and had started to roll back his changesets at the beginning of the issue.

put back trails*

Likewise thank you kpdrg for your intervention! :) Good days and happy mappings too!

Hello! About this node osm.org/node/5774023224/history
Are you talking about the peak since you tagged it as natural=peak, which in this case the peak on that surrounding is not exactly there, or are you referring to the exact location where you placed the node? In this last case is there something to attest the location like a touristic board, a memorial... ? By the way, on the Lidar tile background you can see the terrain weirdly shaped near the real location of the peak, possibly related to the battlefield.

Hello! I understand your interpretation, it has some logic, specifically for the large vehicles but it's still misleading because some people find a single trail path more interesting (cuter, wilder, more sinuous, etc) than a track, so they will favour as selection but will be deceived when arrived on terrain. Also it happens often that fallen trunks/trees are temporary if they are due to forestry exploitation. So what i personally rather do and would suggest is rather keep the way as it is, and just add barrier=block on the locations where are such trunks. If the way is very long as the first track you changed in path, i would just add one at each near extremity of the way and another one or few in the middle. It's even faster to add theses changes than changing the highway type and easy enough with copy/pasting or reselct iD's last tags suggested by the editor. Personally i even make the difference between "fallen trunk" which you can go over and "fallen tree" adding an extra tag natural=tree when the whole tree and branches are over the way forbidding even pedestrians to continue over the way.

Also i know it's not easy in iD editor, but please pay attention how you manipulate nodes because I noticed that somehow you misplaced the position on the western end when you've cut it making the highways cross each other in XX. :)

I've made the changes. Thanks for your understanding and your updates! As a real thanks and if you mountain bike like i do as well, check this new path and continuous in the forest osm.org/way/946427822 Might become narrow at periods because of the hedges but it's a nice way for hikes, rides... It seems private because you enter some sort of courtyard but it is not.

Ajoutes tes observations, je viens de délimiter la partie grade1 osm.org/way/945548765

Jakka, he has been contacted, warned for his errors and even random contributions, he didn't care and continued afterwards. Check these changesets:
osm.org/changeset/104870170
osm.org/changeset/103989779
I reported him, awaiting moderators...

Le simple fait de dire "vous pouvez râler je m'en fiche" est une preuve de votre manque de respect envers le travail de la communauté d'OSM et donc d'OSM également! OSM est avant tout un travail d'équipe avec des consensus et donc des règles et balises à respecter pour garder l'intégrité de la carte. Vous avez altéré beaucoup d'éléments de façon totalement aléatoire. Hesdrib vous a contacté et vous a demandé d'arrêter vos contributions. J'avoue qu'il aurait pu vous préciser les raisons de cette demande mais vous n'avez pas répondu et entre temps avez continué à faire des changements erronés que j'ai du corriger. Donc pour moi vous effectuez totalement du vandalisme et c’est pour cela que je vous ai signalé. De plus votre nom d'utilisateur semble être généré aléatoirement, ce qui rajoute du doute sur vous. Encore entre-temps une 3e personne vous avertit sur vos contributions erronées à propos de cet élément osm.org/way/332670743 ! Ce n'est pas suffisant pour vous remettre en question ou vous vous en fichez encore?

Hello! Route networks have a logical hierarchy, having an isolated network (island like) of unclassified ways which can only be accessed via tracks is not logical because as OSM's WIki says, the unclassified road is "used for minor public roads, typically at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network". Note: "typically" the lowest level, it doesn't mean "always " though because some are rather service ways and still accessible to access a feature. I checked the area, it seems to be natural with some recreational areas and the way seem rather unpaved, so tagging them as unclassified is really not correct. Anyway, tagging according a routing service is a bad practice because it misleads users of the map. Track is indeed the right tag according how large the ways are. Sorry but it needed to be changed to avoid misleading or worse, people starting to take the habit to tag incorrectly elements, i did the correction.

Which routing service are you using? I may be able to help you. I am suspecting that the service has different routing options to enhance it according the kind of mobility the user needs like pedestrian, cyclist, driver, etc... If they don't have such option and avoid a type of "highway", it's rather a bad integration of their service while using OSM's data, hence their own fault.

Hesdrib, je l'ai signalé.

Thanks for the confirmation!

Hi! has this area been changed in scrub? Even a young forest maybe?osm.org/way/868371413

Sorry to bother again... It wasn't me who converted the last way i asked you about in path, someone else did it... I am still genuinely awaiting your response.

I contacted the original contributor of this way osm.org/way/942861582 and was waiting his response. I just split it to make things clear. You shouldn't have changed it as path! Now he will maybe think i didn't care about his response and changed it anyway if he won't pay attention to who did the change. That's a bit disrespectful you did there, Tom. Check here osm.org/changeset/104575040

Following my message i just sent you, this is another good example of what i explained you.

I forgot to mention "Mapper's Delight LH" data is from winter 2018/2019, so for those ways it might be already outdated. That's why i'm asking for confirmation.

Hi! Did you go on terrain for this track? osm.org/way/942221142 Asking because the track seems very degraded from Mapper's Delight LH and i don't see any GPS activity, so i would put it rather as grade5.
On the next one though, i can see very few activities. Which makes me think that it is connected to the main road here osm.org/node/256249372
Tracktype?
Last, isn't this one rather a path?
osm.org/way/942861582

Your confirmations will be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

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.