Welcome! It's OK, I understand that OSM has a learning curve . :)

For unpaved ways in nature it is now preferred that you lifecycle/archive them with the according lifecycle prefix because some experienced users use external sources that may still show that the ways are still being used. In a way you are then confirming them that the way was already plotted in OSM and doesn't exist anymore. Though by experience, i know that many users assume again via personal interpretation but here you precised "even by foot" which indeed is the highest type of free mobility (pass over obstacles, climb, etc). So to a certain extent i trust you.

By my own survey last year, i know that this portion osm.org/way/270585872 was indeed already well crowded by dense shrubs last year. This one osm.org/way/262602030 i could ride it though.

I will certainly pass there soon enough to check them by myself. Leaving them archived though+fixme added.

Hi! Welcome to OSM!

Even though the secondary highways and roundabout don't lead to any pedestrian or bicycle "friendly" ways, they are not really forbidden to cyclists or pedestrians (they can walk on the side on the grass), there is no road sign forbidding them, so this is very subjective. If a cyclist wants just to pass by the roundabout to turn around, the cyclists are allowed to do so. Also, possibly mountain bikers may take paths which may not be plotted yet in OSM but may exist. So, sorry to say that you are not respecting reality, you are rather assuming a restriction via personal opinion, which is not allowed in OSM.

For any high performance highways like motorways, trunks, normally it is assumed by default or popular knowledge in European countries (and worldwide i guess) that such highways are not allowed for low mobility as the definition in OSM's Wiki states... So normally you don't need to bother for such highways. Though i see on the highway trunk from the roundabout leading to N in the tunnel, some cyclists do ride there, maybe because it is limited to 70 km/h. Also there are sidewalks on those trunks because there are emergency exits, passages, fire extinguishers...

Also you've split highways for trunk_links whereas they are not really links, the trunk goes directly to the roundabout, only the highway not connecting to the roundabout can be considered as a link.

I know that in some situations interpretation is necessary yet it is important that you do not let your interpretation dictate you edits as much as possible and assume the wider use for a variety of type of users.

So I'm going to do the corrections on what I said.

Thanks for your edits though!

+ MP integration

Thank you very much for the information! I didn't know and understand now. I will contact them.

My feelings are motivated by logic and respecting what has been accepeted by community. The natural key has never included artificial features. Also I'm fed up of duplicated tag schemes for the same feature, it's becoming more common every once in a while.

For the changeset description, OK i see but it is still a very general description like some others do in OSM. So it's not really relevant and helping other contributors understand what changes you did, therefore not really transparent. I think you can easily make an effort for the descriptions.

Thanks again on the enlightenment for iD! Have a great continuation!

By the way about the "natural=" key,
I'm in discussion in the Wiki page to denounce the "sudden" change of the definition in 2020. Previously the definition never stated that the natural key can integrate artificial features. Discussion here: osm.wiki/Talk:Key:natural#Natural_???

Hi!
For osm.org/way/610231135 landuse=basin is not an error. There are people who find this tag to be more accurate than natural=water + water=basin because clearly the feature is a land that has been shaped to contain water, i's not really a natural feature: it's rectangular, there is a weir/dam to hold water. All this as the definition states.

The landuse=basin exists since 2009 and has more than 200k elements whereas the new combo tag exists only since 2020 and 100k elements. Cleary this is already a duplicated tag.

You've been doing this on several of your changesets and in areas very far appart. Another example here where you've chnaged 4 of them osm.org/changeset/125908527 So this can be considered like war tagging! By the way, the fact that you do not describe exactly what you do in your changeset is shady. So I ask you politely to stop imposing your "tag preferences" and respect tags that have been voted and established for more than a decade otherwise I'll report you.

Hi!

In the future, please, lifecycle prefix the features if they are still available on commonly used sources. For tracks, paths, etc in nature they are almost all lifecycled. I've already restored the element and lifecycled it.

More infos here osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
There are problems though for this prefix tagging scheme on certain features at certain lifecycle stages , I discuss in the Wiki here: osm.wiki/Talk:Lifecycle_prefix#Flawed_with_prefixes_construction,_disused,_abandoned

There is another problem i didn't talk about but you need to reply, so please do not make any corrections yet and explain me the current situation on terrain. Thanks!

Hi! Welcome back in contributing to OSM.

As far as i understand your edits...
- Rue Erasme has been updated: one of the 2 lanes is now a cycleway. So possibly the cycleway should rather be centered on the former right lane, the only lane left likewise on the left one.
- This link osm.org/way/1092201708 seems going over grass on the recent aerial photos. Does it really exist? I would assume then there are markings on teh floor or structured material. If there is nothing, therefore not, please stay faithful to what is on terrain.
- The roundabout, sorry to say but it seems you're still unfamiliar with tagging. What i can see now is that you've duplicated the cycleway all around it. The original ways around the roundabout had
highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no, so a way, whether it's highway=path, footway or cycleway and has foot=designated + cycleway=designated, it means it is a shared way. Normally highway=path is the most basic/all purpose way, the original mapper should have used it for shared the pedestrians/cyclists ways. So, my guess is that you wanted to create a separate cycleway and footway. Most simple would have been to put segregated as =yes. But is there really something that separates two ways all around the roundabout with a marking or physical feature? Crossings we do not count normally as it makes the routing less intuitive like zigzagging between things which do not exist. You can express it crossing's node with segregated=yes.

About zigzagging, example on this node osm.org/node/10002921657 try to keep directions straight if the way goes straight because many people use GPS services while they ride, therefore all should be as clear as possible to make the ways intuitive. More useless complexity demands to the brain more analysis of the map, therefore more attention on the GPS instead on the way. It's one of the reasons why I asked you if the little cycleway link really exists.

+ access corrected

Hi HAL_lux! Welcome back, long time no see. :)

FYI, fenced=yes is deprecated now. The key barrier=* regroups all values for all barriers such as wall, hedge, etc. The sub key fence_type=* is still active though.
More infos on the key barriers here: osm.wiki/Key:barrier

I've updated.

+ cutting added

Salut T! :) As you know I've done a tour last Thursday in this region. On your CS :
- on v2 of osm.org/way/1026386742 you lifecycled this path with the prefix "abandoned:" but i still found it. To be fair, it is faint from the top because of the leaves (but this happens ever year after Fall season) but still recognizable mid way with erosion between the grasses. As extra sources, you could have helped yourself with the LIDAR and Heatmap's data showing some light GPS traces. On your activity, I remember you photographed rather the hollow way instead of this path. Is that maybe what you thought to be the path? My photos:
from top https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JIW-duwXIQj40W7BYGWE04of6ECzAqxq
and bottom + mid way
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FH1xJTdwqMEUI9-mlkiLgxayW5eRCNcX

- on v2 of osm.org/way/1026386741 you tagged this track with access=no whereas there is nothing that forbids anyone to use it and it is clearly visible (2 trails). So here I can't understand your tagging even though you had put a note saying "seems abandoned but didn't get evidence". It is obviously not abandoned or tell me what do you mean by "abandoned". Surely not every month forestry vehicles pass over every track and refresh the erosion, possibly even every year for the lowest levels of unpaved tracks, i mean which are left natural, so yeah they can be "délaissés" but they will surely be reused depending of the kind of user. If you didn't get evidence it is abandoned, then no need to point that out and add access=no. Photo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EVtjTslvh80c8IysChNAla7Sw7_XYyHo

Because of these I would like to understand the reasons of your edits.

I think you realize that not all tracks are of the same level of infrastructure, some are kept natural to keep land antural and make sure that the ground is not too impacted by human exploitation. On these it is normal that nature dominates back with grasses or little shrubs but the ways will be reused, though with less chances if you hide them in OSM. Naturally, the grade4 can later become grade5 and these last can become either a path if some pedestrians, cyclists, horses still use it while some shrubs have grown in the mean time and restrict passage to big vehicles, or of course disappear (abandoned in terms of OSM's lifecyle prefix) because of high grasses, shrubs, trees and other obstacles concealing/restricting the way.

I could go on and explain you my vision of ways in nature but I'd write a book, don't want to take too much of your time. LOL :) Good day and safe ride!

@kepivar you neither are having a friendly attitude to mappers and even quite suspicious :
- you don't seem cooperative since you didn't answer yet my questions but you've have been questioning others in the mean time.
- you've been contacting other contributors on their changesets randomly worldwide. Well it's nice to point what is wrong but...
- using a recent account with ZERO contributions, but you seem knowing some things about OSM, so possibly not your first sockpuppet account and hiding yourself from something
- clearly it gives you some sort of advantage, if you enter in conflict regarding preferences in tags with someone, it is quite twisted.

Bonjour! Pour votre info, j'ai eu un flashback sur une page que j'avais visité il y a très longtemps. A l'époque je contribuais sur iD que je trouvais très restrictif pour des contributions faciles/rapides. Alors je cherchais un moyen de contribuer plus vite avec les MP et j'étais aussi tombé sur la page qui parle des inners qui se touchent sans inner vide les entourant. osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Touching_inner_rings

C'est donc bien documenté mais sur la page anglaise.

One of the clearcuts can be viewed already as heath on the 2021 photos. osm.org/way/1089047792

Oh, hi you too! Zero contributions, sorry to say but that's weird! Several accounts? What is the purpose of your question?

To reply you, the clearcuts can be seen in Geoportail.lu's 2021 photos. At the beginning i think we can already start to put such features as grassland but then I know that in my region here not many update forests and fields. I'm one of the very few ones to update these. The Wiki suggests to eventually already put clearcuts as natural=scrub but i find that exaggerated, so since I know roughly how the cycle of forests work I've put these as natural=heath.

@ivanbranco this person contributes random stuff. I've checked some elements of one of his changesets and it's wrong.
osm.org/changeset/125351873
Better report him.

Hi! StreetComplete is supposed to be an app for contributions based on surveys on site. Don't tell me all these locations were done on the same survey...
Very shady... So I checked some via aerial photographies and other sources: osm.org/way/256781717
osm.org/way/533199972
osm.org/way/182495327
These are not asphalted for sure! These are clearly random contributions and can be considered as vandalism.