The signes refer to the "Legge prov.le n. 10 - 8/5/1990"

Hello Anonix,
I would not know since when the Wasserfallweg has been closed to bicycles. The about a dozen signes though seem pretty new, having no algae or moss or something on them. The track itself looks as if it might have been refurbished only lately, possibly this year.
I am no longer in the area, so I cannot check on the ground where the routes might be now.

Hello Ydel,
thanks for your edits on archaelogical sites. site_type= has been deprecated and replaced by archaeological_site= now, see here:
osm.wiki/FR:Key:site_type

So I replaced this in your edit. You might not want to use them any longer.
Greetings!
ChillyDL

Hallo Paul Kessler,
danke für die Eintragungen der Hügelgräber. Ich sehe, dass du deine Eintragungen mit "Waldweg" beschrieben hast, bei vielen anderen auch - würdest du bitte stattdessen genau beschreiben, was du geändert hast, und vor allem die Quellen angeben?
In diesem Fall: Woher weißt du, wo genau jedes dieser Hügelgräber steht, dass es sich tatsächlich jeweils um eins handelt und dass sie alle aus der Bronzezeit stammen?

Hallo Shaun das Schaf,
ja, da hast du völlig Recht. Das stammt noch aus der Zeit, als ich iD folgsam sein wollte und mir die Alternative culvert nicht klar war. Ich hatte irgendwann mal mir alle Warnungen im oberen Kandertal von iD anzeigen lassen und bearbeitet, da waren vermutlich 50+ Weg-Bach-Kreuzungen dabei.
Ich hatte diese von mir daraufhin eingefügten "Brücken" bisher drin gelassen, weil ich wegen der iD-Warnung vermutet habe, dass unmögliche Weg-Bach-Kreuzungen schlimmer sind als Brücken, die eigentlich ein Durchlass sind.
Sollte ich diese falschen Brücken stattdessen löschen? Was meinst du?

We seem to have slightly different views on what is an improvement. Good that we can agree on adding fortification_type=castle to the dozen of archaeological_site=fortification that I converted from archaeological_site=castle two days ago.
Done.

I am not too happy with fortification_type=castle either due to its vagueness, but actually, vague this object is.
So how about adding fortification_type=castle?

I can see how annoying you must find it to interfere with what you would like your map to look like. It is just that, in any case, this is a no longer visible, archaeological site, and it should be tagged with the according tags for such. archaeological_site=castle is not helpful, unspecific as it is. I do not favour its introduction – or expansion of use beyond the odd occurrence, if you want so.

Hello,
just to be sure: This object has not been tagged historic=castle like castle normally are, but was tagged archaeological_site=castle. This was a value not in use and was breaking the tagging scheme of archaeological sites – tagged by the very mapper who set out to restructure the historic=archaeological_site family half a year ago with renaming and mechanically re-tagging osm.wiki/Tag:site_type=, and coming up with quite a few out-of-scheme values, with very little communication.

Since nothing is left of this castle to be seen (aerial imagery shows a plain meadow), mapping may be questionable in the first place, but if mapped, the tagging scheme needs to be under historic=archaeological_site. Given that the structure has completely disappeared and given the relatively short time that castles in the other meaning of the term as non-defensive “stately home” have existed, it is not plausible that the former structure has been anything than a defensive fortification. So I specified this, not removing information, but adding information by being more precise.

There isn’t yet a clearly established tagging scheme for former, now archaeological stately homes, palaces, and the like. Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should certainly not be archaeological_site=castle.

Hello jcphal,
I have noticed that you are still using site_type= to specify archaeological sites. This tag has been deprecated and archaeological_site= is meant to be used instead, see e. g. here:
site_type=*

I fixed it at a tumulus South East of Pierrefiche today.

Sorry for the inconvenience. This was a global quality assurance edit, identical for about 120,000 POIs: “site_type=” has been removed where there was a “archaeological_site=” tag with the same value. To track the changes, you can find the documentation here (step 2):
osm.wiki/Automated_edits/ChillyDL#site_type_to_archaeological_site_implementation

Danke!
Das war wohl ich vor ein paar Jahren ...

Hello MichaelCollinson, I see you mapped four historic=archaeological_site as site_type=fort. "fort" is not really in use for archaeological sites, so I changed the value to "fortification".
Also, you may want to switch to archaeological_site= instead of osm.wiki/Tag:site_type=; site_type= having been deprecated for archaelogical sites.
Best regards!

Hello Lutalica_1974,
I am not sure about this POI. Could you give the source of this entry? Müller/Reimers described this dolmen as destroyed in 1893, Sprockhoff could not find any remains as early as in the 1920s, there is no mention in the Denkmalatlas Niedersachsen, and there is nothing to see on any aerial image.
We do not map non-existant objects.

Ich glaube, der Verein sollte besser als Node in dem Gebäude getaggt werden und nicht als das Gebäude selbst, oder?

All well, let's do it like this.
And yes, true, referring to "site_type=" as deprecated in this context was misleading. It is not.

I did not decide on their status as archaeological sites. They were not tagged as such, but used the deprecated `site_type=industrial` where other objects in the area use `historic=industrial`. The situation in this case was that in the Yorkshire Dales and North Pennines, a tagging as `historic=industrial` is fairly common, introduced by a user about three years ago. It does not have a documented definition, and it doesn't seem fitting well within other "historic" values because it doesn't tell what it actually is/was, like you write. But this being the local scheme – albeit not always consequently in its details –, I used this scheme with 6 objects to keep local consistency.

This makes sense to me, but I can undo this with these objects.

For a more comfortable view of the changeset, see Achavi:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=131806091

Hello SomeoneElse,
I suppose you mean your questions as always? This is only the 3rd time we talk about a changeset, and never before did you ask those questions. So for us a first time.

The tag changes in these 16 objects were mainly the removal of redundant "site_type=" tags, occasionally with other details added like from aerial photography.

Since this is not a mass nor a automated edit but simple database quality assurance in a mere dozen cases, I saw no need for a discussion.

Hello zolt d,
I see you deleted archaeological_site= and turned name:en to name:es for the English name for Cueva de los tayos as well as Cuevas de Tayunts.
Both is surprising - can you let me know why?

Hallo cayenne11,
das Lautariusgrab ist ein Hünen-, kein Hügelgrab, siehe z. B. Wikipedia-Artikel. Ich habe es wieder zurückgetaggt.