please review way/377154735:
the tag highway=parh looks like a typo for path,
but isn't it a highway=service;service=driveway?

okay, thanks. Satellite pictures don't show much details there ;-)

please review node/1374419034:
highway=forward:stop is rarely used.
Did you mean
highway=bus_stop
or maybe
highway=stop
direction=forward
?

Hi Minko,

please review: the way/6341890.
We have a boundary relation/2655594
with the name Stiens, I guess way/6341890
should just be tagged landuse=residential ?

okay, please consider also to use something
like highway=path,path=social_trail

Looking forward for the discussion on the tagging list...

oay, thanks, I''ll try that

okay, in that case I suggest to tag them with access=no. I am a co-developer of mkgmap,
a software which converts OSM data to Garmin img format, and I am pretty sure that almost all ways which are tagged with unusual highway=* are considered to be usable for all vehicles unless access=no
or similar is used. That's why I don't like the usage of special highway values. You should not expect data consumers to know implicit rules. My first idea reg. "social trail" was that it describes some kind of teaching while walking ;-)

Not sure if I got this right (I'm a German).
Does that mean that a "social trail" should not be used because it maybe disturbe animals or destroy soemthing else?

okay, damit willst also sagen, dass Du die Örtlichkeiten auch nur "von oben" kennst, richtig ? Ich sehe nämlich aktuell keinen
nennenswerten Widerspruch zum Luftbild.

please explain:
why do you use highway=social_path ?
I'd prefer highway=path and maybe other attributes like access=private or social=yes (whatever that means) or a note that explains why the ways are special.

okay, thanks for the feedback.

sorry, mir geht es um die Wege 54563551,345233068 und 345233065.
Hätte eigentlich dabei stehen sollen :-(

Please explain:
why did you change the highway tag (again) to highway=historic ?
If the way is still in use I think it should be tagged with the corresponding highway
tag + historic=highway

please review:
I've changed the rarely used highway=stairway to highway=steps

please review:
the tag highway=tour is rather unusal
and doesn't inform about the used vehicle. It is also not understood by the renderer.
The comment mentions a "mountain footpath",
so I assume they are all highway=path
See
highway=path
Please try to provide more info, e.g. if bicycle traffic is allowed.

please review:
I guess you meant highway=footway here.
It should probably be combined with way/32056568 (which has no tags so far) and
way/4719329.

please review ways 371867114 and 371867112:
The tag highway=footpath is rarely used,
it could be path or footway. In any case,
please specify bicycle access (yes/no) as well.

Bitte prüfen:
highway=footpath is ungewöhnlich,
es passt entweder highway=path oder highway=footway
way/366472070,node 3704494525,way 366472072
Bitte auch angeben, ob Radeln erlaubt ist.
Der Weg dazwischen (way/366472071) hat gar keine Tags.

please review: highway=footpath
is unusual, use either path or footway.

Bitte prüfen:
highway=footpath ist ungewöhnlich.
Bitte path oder footway verwenden.
Gibt es da sonst keinen Weg zwischen
den Brücken? Gilt evtl. bicycle=yes ?