By the way, if you want proof that i don't follow blindly every source, therefore invent imaginary paths, I've been the first to warn LU contributors on countless notes/elements that the official governmental source map "Geoportail.lu Topo" is not deem of trust, and this way before the LIDAR layer was available (May 2020). Go ahead, check the history of any element, i've been the one to introduce the note :
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1aHa

Latest recovers with proofs in another location: osm.org/changeset/109157888

No, I'm not bad mouthing him, just telling the truth since I've proven so! Since you are ignoring them and failing at your poor and illogical moderation, the community deserves to know if a person either intentionally tamper with the data... Or if it's not intentional, the person is missing something in his head in order to transcribe correctly the reality to OSM, if the person doesn't want to correct his interpretation, he IS ALSO A VANDAL!

And the community also deserves to know the kind of moderation you've applied: you chose to ignore the evidences I've posted publicly on several cases, there are at least 6 of them I've surveyed again recently and have been proven to exist whereas VANDAL tomolobla had deleted the data! I am sure I will find more cases after I've WASTED more of my time doing again surveys. If he is not a vandal, he must be lacking brains.
In extra, notes from third part persons like loukote on note 2770137 and an anonymous reporter on note 2791401 then on 2793297 on the matter of changing the name from all religious buildings in LU (did you know there is a difference between a cathedral, church, chapel, etc and that's why it is included in the name, even on Google Maps, Wikipedia, etc ? ), have also proven that tomolobla has been tampering OSM's data. Thank you woodpeck for letting a VANDAL act unpunishingly even though I've given proofs and WASTING our time on repairing the data!

Also... since the conflict you had said that both of us should refrain from contributing thanks to unverified sources, only contribute along a recent survey, until you come back to us, you said it would take few weeks. For more than 3 months, tomolobla could continue editing big changesets and tamper the data on the same way he used to without any shown evidence he had been on terrain, whereas you had blocked me even though I had proven I had been on terrain with photos, videos, GPS data and posted on Mapillary... Where is the logic in your moderation? You never explained and you've always chosen to remain silent. How convenient for your pride, right! And after such a long time you haven't given any valid sign of investigation! You call that trustful moderation??? Even though tomolobla has deleted his account, this is not over yet, far from it, trust me!

I corrected, so you can't see anymore the error: the stairs were self-intersecting

Hi! Please, be careful when you edit ways osm.org/way/680673831

Hi! I think it is very possible that the issue comes from the service you used. I've tried several different ones, on OSM with OSRM & Graphhopper included, they all accepted all intersections. Routing proposition is rather something else, not all propose the shortest routing. Which one did you use?

Je n'y ai pas touché sur ce changeset, j'ai surtout retravaillé les anciennes zones industrielles FR car il y a des nouvelles pistes cyclables par là. J'ai juste retouché le landuse=railway coté LU qui s'étend jusqu'à Pétange.

Hi! Do you have a source(s) for having added these ways to Via Agrippa? It's interesting because on the South-Western end of those tracks on node osm.org/node/353928150 there seems to be unnatural shaped terrain going down the hill to the existing primary road bridge. Though it's in conflict with Stereo's findings about "Rue des Romains" but for this alternative there is a cliff on the other side of the river and no evidence on LIDAR's imagery. See extra notes/fixmes on these elements:
osm.org/way/806231823
osm.org/way/806231824

Bonjour! Le tag correct à toujours utiliser pour les mines ou l'accès est de plan de horizontal est "man_made=adit". Perso, je suis enclin à ajouter "natural=cave_entrance" lorsque l'entrée n'a aucune structure de maintien, en bref il est resté "naturel". Si ça se trouve la grotte était déjà là... mais c'est plus dur à vérifier via une source historique... J'ai ajouté le tag

J'ai vérifié sur les images LIDAR, sur votre position il n'y a rien mais elle est très proche, 16m, d'un mur de maintien que je viens d'ajouter. Ne serait-ce pas là plutot? Il me semble aussi qu'en bas du fossé j'avais remarqué qu'il y a de l'eau si mes souvenirs sont corrects en passant sur le petit chemin à coté du batiment.

Bonjour! De nouveau moi la personne qui questionnait votre position sur OSM du gué romain de Reilandermillen proche du pont en bois. J'ai été sur le terrain, il a fallu que je longe tout le ruisseau à partir du pont pour finalement le trouver qu'à peine quelques mètres du parking Reilandermillen comme je l'avait suggéré grâce au images LIDAR. Comparé à votre position initiale il y a une différence de 60m. Photo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19emWDHUrbLR4Mcx6bgCiRFaWmjirQ1Va/

Après ça, êtes vous aussi sûr que l'époque de construction du gué est romaine? Avez vous une source officielle ou est-ce une hypothèse personnelle (qui peut être aussi officielle si vous êtes archéologue)?

Merci également pour votre contribution récente de la cave voûtée à Paaschent. J'y ai également précisé la position et ajouté d'autres éléments tel que escaliers, sentiers, etc.

Bien à vous,
S.

+ new elements, tags added

+ tags corrected meadow to grass

weir*

● osm.org/way/471608525 which was deleted (see history v4) leads to hiking structures: path osm.org/way/471608525 and handrail osm.org/way/970422020 and serves as alternate path up to path osm.org/way/471608530

Proofs:
● Imagery + GPS Heatmap in deleted state https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wX049ZQueffa0IahpDtJyNMedfvqvBHQ , Imagery + GPS Heatmap in restored state https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Slz26zZc6M-FldCLdUCX1P8Som67BSDN
● GPS file from 2021.08.02 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z493K-ikgzETAJEUxry6v8qp0IuaH8gM
● video on way 690602860 + scrubs 690602859 here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SuIwEDTAQDRPDD5D8XBzv4n9n5B8dMSJ

Hi! Thanks for the correction! I wanted to add ford=yes. Readded properly this time.

Large area only because i touched the mountain range

+ new elements

Hi! Was it the voice inside your head? ;) Yeah fan too, well used to.

OSM: you plotted a separate way for the sidewalk/cycleway whereas it was already partially tagged on the main road as cycleway:right=track, the tags related for pedestrians were still missing though. Since both use the same way i did some tag corrections.

Bonjour,
Vous avez changé la position de ce chemin osm.org/way/515745323 surtout sur la chicane ici osm.org/node/1614396762 en vous basant sur les dernières photos du moment et/ou votre trace GPS (qui n'est pas forcément correcte). En réalité la ligne du chemin passait déjà assez bien sur chemin relatif à la position réelle mais depuis votre intervention elle sort de la route. Au Luxembourg nous avons une très bonne ressource comme fond d'imagerie qui s'appelle "Openstreetmap.lu Mapper's Delight" aussi disponible dans l'éditeur iD et qui permet de voir la véritable position sans aucune correction d'offset à faire (attention cette ressource date de l'hiver 2018/2019) Donc, s'il vous plait veuillez vérifier avant. Merci!