Hi! You've created some awkward and broken elements which need to be pointed out:

www.openstreetmap.org/way/690415260 (and others like www.openstreetmap.org/way/690415258 which i corrected) were not connected to the road network

www.openstreetmap.org/way/690415255 you plotted it over a parking for handicapped, it should continue further NE up to the other service because that's the exit, instead of the footway you've extended from E. I've corrected now, yet didn't connect your service because I want to prove you you're the only one who edited it.

Please, be careful when plotting highways. :)

Hi!
In v11 you've introduced this bollard www.openstreetmap.org/node/69049381 on a secondary road... This clearly is very unlikely to exist and as far as i recall when I passed there there has never been a bollard. I've just tried now if routing services still would pass over it, of course not, this for two years and half. So I consider this as a serious error from you even if you're a beginner in OSM, I think you should have some basic sense to realise that this is strongly to be avoided.

Also adding this bollard has nothing to do with HOTOSM project 3603.

Oh, and thanks for checking the way along the farm! Indeed it is quite old. I had checked the GPS Heatmap though and there is one trace going behind the farm but most go over the private property.

Indeed it's not always easy because many people intervene and some even change the Wiki without thinking of the consequences. It's always good to discuss about interpretations in the according section.

Yes, I had guessed there is such sign according your description. If it's the same as the one on you profile picture, it's the code C50 (diverse information). It can be tagged as traffic_sign=FR:C50

Recently I've had another contributor who confused tagging, even though i had warned him about the signs and how to tag. He had put the way as dedicated cycleway but the way is shared with agriculture vehicles.

First traffic sign forbidding normal traffic + exception
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jh4plQl4GSxZ3P_3TVjEpF4E92fso2-5

Second sign informing it is shared, the same as yours.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D6qJARRyYiG9-CXFbD0_QhU_2uzf5Hib

Oh... You're saying the way is accessible again yet you're leaving the tag access=no on the way and added bicycle=yes and foot=yes, leaving the way greyed out on the map (I thought the rendering was still being updated on the map).

FYI, this tag combination is ambiguous for coding as it exists different ways to interpret combinations, taking into account exceptions or not. By essence, the access=* is for all means of mobility, no exceptions. It's either all or the specific tags only. So please, do not assume that a general access=no + specific exceptions is corrected for accessible ways as this is an interpretative combination. The original standard OSM Carto has been greying up the way no matter extra specific access tags you add for ages. Also third part routing services may accept or deviate the directions people will plan depending how the service wants to interpret it. In the end, it just misleads everybody.

Some people from other regions started to make the combo exceptions and even edited OSM's Wiki because they don't have the patience to add properly other specific tags (especially in Germany from my observations).

I've done the corrections + other observations. Thanks for all!

Hi! Thank you for the update! Possibly you've forgotten one portion: is this tunnel opened now too?www.openstreetmap.org/way/82206838

+ farmyard updated

Quelques exemples et explications:
Voici un champ de paturage (landuse=meadow) pour boeufs et vaches écossaises Highland, une race ancienne. Le champ se trouve également sur une réserve naturelle avec des critères spécifiques. Voyez les photos aériennes, vous remarquerez que le champ est également submergé de buissons. www.openstreetmap.org/way/516850957/
Cherchez sur internet "Prenzebierg vaches" vous trouverez cet article et lisez "tondeuses écologiques", vous comprendrez.

Dans la réserve sans enclos, espace libre à la promenade où il y a pléthore de buissons, il arrive également qu'il y ait un fermier qui fasse venir des moutons à certaines périodes www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5465452

Je pense donc que l'addition des deux est tout a fait pertinent. C'est un espace naturel certes mais également exploité. L'humain est très bon pour exploiter tout et n'importe quoi, n'importe où et la nature reprend se droits également.

C'est la même idée pour d'autres valeurs de landuse où il y a des fortes chances qu'il y ait également de la végétations comme des carrières, des friches industrielles délaissées, railways, etc. Après je vous rejoint sur des combinaisons comme landuse=commercial +natural=scrub, c'est fort peu probable.

Je ne suis pas le seul, voir ici en FR et DE https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jTJ

Quoique vous avez raison au final pour ce polygone-ci, il me semble bien dense en buissons. Merci!

Bonjour! Merci pur la correction du polygone!

Pour les tags, s'il vous plait si jamais il y a une combinaison de landuse=grass (ou =meadow) avec natural=scrub, ce n'est pas forcément conflictuel. Je sais que landuse=grass correspond surtout aux aires d'herbe basses/tondues mais de toute façon l'herbe pousse, elle est naturelle, il y a des fauchages tardifs qui durent un certain temps et donc il ya des herbes plus sauvages qui peuvent pousser. Je profite alors du fait que depuis un certain temps natural=scrub prend en compte ces combinaisons en changeant la couleur, pratique pour exprimer que ce n'est pas uniquement des buissons non traversables. Dans le cas ici donc si quelqu'un veut visiter ce genre de site, souvent délaissés, il ne sera pas découragé.

Cordialement,
S.

Hi,

I'd like to know how, via which actions, am I not leaving room for other mappers in Luxembourg? You brought up the farmland differences but also said neither is wrong. So you are being very vague and even contradicting yourself. Certainly my merges do not forbid anyone in continuing to plot their polygons and i didn't contact anyone as I don't even know who we are talking about. Though you are threatening me and it seems that in the end I am the one who is going to be restricted... Do you find it fair??

I never said their approach is wrong. I just merge the elements or I update if needed. As already said, I never delete any areas geospatially already rendered. That's how the coverage in SW from Luxembourg has been able to extend or in W of Echternach, etc.

If it's not about the farmland, the only times i contact other contributors is when I want to know about the recent changes regarding updated elements, or I want them to respect the tag definitions in OSM's Wiki to avoid misleading or when there are elements that disappear, that they rather tag them with the lifecycle prefix instead of deleting them, specially recent elements to avoid that someone else adds it back. Many contributors do this as i've been also contacted by them.

For a long time my profile invites people to cooperate with me: Feel free to contact me, i am opened to any discussion. If you have recommendations or corrections to suggest, do not hesitate to tell me.

When I was in conflict with tomolobla, Stereo suggested me to come in the IRC Luxembourg chat community to cooperate with the community and avoid conflicts. I did so and sometimes I share news regarding Luxembourg. Him and a very few handful others are the only ones communicating there. No one complained about me. So I don't get it, who is the person that complains about me? As far as it is possible, only one person can create a report to contact the DWG. Who is that representative and for whom really? Also you didn't give me the name of the person for the last time whereas i deserve a minimum of. All this is VERY shady! That's not being cooperative!

I recall you, you don't have the right to forbid me to contribute as long as I'm not vandalising the data. Saying that i forbid others is absurd! The data is not yours, the infrastructure is not yours, you are supposed to support the community in order to have a faithful map, not spoil people who want to force another contributor to map a certain way.

Sorry, the discussion was on changeset www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100996918
The restored elements were from www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100694484

Si le chemin n'est plus du tout praticable pour tout le monde, en effet on peut l'effacer mais ce serait encore mieux de le désactiver avec l'un des préfixes lifecycle osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix pour éviter que quelqu'un ne le remette plus tard parce qu'il le voit sur des vieilles photos aériennes ou sur le LIDAR Hillshade, comme je t'ai dit. Il peut aussi arriver une bonne surprise, quelqu'un avait désactivé des chemins, va savoir pourquoi et récemment quelqu'un d'autre les a réactivés. Voir ma discussion ici avec lui osm.org/changeset/119374357
Par contre, je suis désolé, tu ne peux pas effacer des chemins pour des raisons subjectives comme tu dis: " il y a d'autres chemins à proximité" alors qu'il existe ou "trop peu praticable". Il y a d'autre tags qui permettent d'exprimer l'aspect praticable d'un chemin "smoothness=very_horrible" ou "=impassable", "trail_visibility=horrible", "tracktype=grade5" etc Tout peut-être un élément d'orientation. Donc même si un chemin ne semble pas agréable, peu praticable ou deux sentiers côte à côte, faut pas les effacer. Comment savoir lequel prendre si jamais on doit changer de chemin? Même si le chemin est 20m plus loin j'ai déjà eu mon GPS qui manquait de précision. Comme tu le dis bien, on doit pouvoir se fier à la carte pour avoir une représentation fidèle à la réalité. Moi-même j'ai failli en faire les frais par un modérateur du DWG il y a quelques années sur des chemins que j'avais effacé pourtant privés qui reliaient 2 chemin publics opposés, on ne le voit pas sur certaines cartes. Je ne me pose plus de question si ce n'est représenter tel quel la réalité.

OK if you didn't find the B0 (red circle on white disc) on the N end, the situation changed apparently. Thanks for all the information!

I'm just trying to understand the situation. As you said, I'm asking you questions, so I am being considerate I think. I had doubts because as I explained there used to be the B0 sign and there are no highways for normal traffic coming from S (according the map). I agree that a minor highway for normal traffic can have a dead end but usually it's because it leads to residences, a parking, a picnic site, a point of interest, etc... Here I don't see anything as far as I've known before the new cycleway. I think we just misunderstood each other. As you said, "French road signs are sometimes bizarre".

Hmm, while I was writing you, I checked the access to the farmyard, the Cadastre seems suggesting there is a public access for "Chemin rural dit Eselsweg" from here osm.org/way/1059304128 going around the farmyard on S then back to the NW to the crossway we were talking about (S of unclassified). Interesting! I will plot that.

Sorry for doubting but too many people don't know how to tag properly highways which have specific status. For example recently on this changeset osm.org/changeset/106977603 I had warned the last two contributors (one beginner and even an experienced) how to deal with highways having the board C3 in BE, same as B0 in F. Few days later, on another changeset the beginner changed other highways. osm.org/changeset/123078979 They were unclassified for years, suddenly someone changed it to cycleway, someone else changed it back to unclassified, then the beginner changed it back to cycleway. I went yesterday to survey them to make it clear because I can see on the aerial photos that there are entrances to the fields. Turned out they are not full-fledged dedicated cycleways but tracks. The beginner didn't care about what I said... So I provided photos. I always try first to cooperate from contributor to contributor, but if they don't care, next time I won't be that gentle.

I still have doubts for the way you changed as cycleway because there used to be entrances to fields on that highway. ;) But I'm leaving it up to you, I don't live near that area.
Thanks again!

Les photos en question côté Aix-sur-Cloie:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sqKvSuNyE5Wm6I6AAe-bwuq3_FXJetDa

+ building updated, description/note added

Vous pouvez communiquer en français avec moi, au cas où.

Which sign on both sides? B0 ?

You said there is a road sign explicitly allowing normal traffic on the S side of that highway but from that S side there is no road for normal traffic (for motorcars, trucks, motorcycles, etc... which can ride on highways such as unclassified, residential, tertiary etc ). As OSM's Wiki says "tracks... are not considered part of the general-purpose road network". On that S side we only have 2 tracks (does not allow normal traffic usually), and a cycleway only for cyclists. So how can there be such a sign ? Or as i said previously, the highway coming from Elzange should be unclassified.

Hi!
Please, make descriptive changeset comments, not the name of the city/village or "divers" like on osm.org/changeset/122999300 We can see the location where the changeset has been done.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Thanks for you understanding!