Hey great adding! But are all these still visible with any obvious material?

I remember this historic you added www.openstreetmap.org/node/7294622906/history but there is a pitch according 2021 aerial photos. So either it's not exactly there or it has been surveyed by archaeologists, nothing has been left and the pitch has been built. Then it would be better to lifecycle it with osm.wiki/Tag:razed:historic=... like i did with this site which was excavated but only the field is left www.openstreetmap.org/node/9373665029
Otherwise if tourists arrive on terrain and they don't see anything, it will be a real deception.
Extra info/tags/description is always welcome.

+ highways split/detailed, lanes added

Rather "welcome back"! :)

Hi! Welcome to OSM as contributor and thank you for adding this new way. New trails, always appreciated! :)

Little note to be careful about: you hadn't connected it to the main road on the West side. So if someone would try to use routing services on that way, it wouldn't be able to pass that western end point or the way wouldn't even be selected to pass over. I did the correction along few little enhancements.

Hi! Thanks for pointing out this way you deleted. Actually it was supposed to be the continuity of www.openstreetmap.org/way/1095621034 I guess that i tagged it with highway=track by mistake while working too swiftly.

Yes, please add such descriptions. Like "naturals/volcanos added" is enough for such small changeset.

Hi! So that you realize how elements should have been plotted... I updated around the loop with a more precise situation because there are still trails leading to dead end. way/270585872 If people see that those leads are not plotted on the map they will still check where they lead out of curiosity, hence why it's important faithfulness. Unfortunately i could not survey the entire loop, dark night was falling and had to finish my tour but i suspect a portion still exists because this entrance still exists www.openstreetmap.org/way/262602030 and it coincides with the activity i shared with you in my last comment.

Merci pour la correction! J'ai effacé le 2e.

Bonjour!
Cela va faire 3 ans que vous avez ajouté ces ronds points en v3 qui n'ont jamais existé:
node/387217810/history
node/292051301/history
et je suppose que vous avez pris conscience que vous ne devez pas enregistrer des projets qui n'existent pas dans la réalité. OSM n'est pas un forum d'information sur les projets, le seul but est de représenter sur carte ce qui existe exactement sur le terrain. C'était à vos débuts dans OSM mais si vous vous souvenez encore de tels éléments que vous devriez effacer, quitte à repasser sur tous vos changesets (il n'y en a pas beaucoup), je vous prie de le faire au plus vite car sinon c'est considéré comme de la désinformation et donc passible de bloquage de votre compte, aucune excuse d'interprétation ne sera possible.

Cordialement,
S

Merci Rom1 ! Bravo!

Hi! Pease correct. Obviously a mistake node/10006526646

and your not:building may be confused with "note="

it's the same :P :)

positions enhanced (JOSM deleted my preferences, past comments no more suggested)

Thanks for the precisions! Firstly the most important is to stay faithful to reality and if we can't get the necessary information, we should suppose what seems obvious Unless that portion as path is really only physically accessible by low mobility users (one human, horse, bicycle, etc), i suppose that the entire way from one intersection to another is a track. That's what i see anyway on the LIDAR and aerial photos like Bing or others. If there are obstacles like a fallen trunk or block, there are tags to express such objects.

For the access it is the same, tracks are made firstly for large vehicle of forestry, agricultural, etc not for the normal traffic by default. Also a way as track warns pedestrians etc that they are on such way and should expect such vehicles time to time therefore be cautious. Side note, horse riders affectionate them too since it is more comfortable for their horse. If you wanted to add an exception tag combination because you've seen this elsewhere or even in OSM's Wiki (don 't know who added this in there but its wrong) it was never meant that way since it adds interpretation, and as I said OSM Carto layer (official OSM layer) never accepted such exceptions, if access=no or =private it will grey out the way no matter what.

Hello! Your edits seem very specific, so i'd like to understand... Why did you add this way as path and as not accessible? Since this way www.openstreetmap.org/way/209440254 is a track larger than paths for forestry/agricultural/off-road vehicles, shouldn't the one you added also be a track? Then, why the access=no + bicycle=yes + foot=no? access=* is for all types of mobility but then you add foot and bicycle=yes. No matter what extra specific mobility tags you add with "X=yes", the way stays restricted for all, hence why OSM's Carto map is greyed out and showing not accessible.

Hi! Can you please be more specific for your changeset description, please. Location + updates is very general as we can see anyway the location of the edits and obviously any data changes in changesets are either corrections or updates. Thanks for you comprehension!
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#:~:text=A%20good%20changeset%20comment%20should,edited%20and%20the%20sources%20used.

OK... can you stop and follow the advice I told you and also first correct the elements i've warned you about.
In this CS you've created this park way/1094493460 whereas the correct park is already in OSM. way/33767656
And other irrelevant elements... I've already warned the Lux. community about your edits. If you continue, you will be very likely reported/blocked. because of this i'm going to revert you CS.

By the way, sometimes aerial photos can mislead contributors. For these buildings:
- this one way/163755944 it doesn't have the right shape, there are actually 2 clearly separate buildings.
- and way/163755766 same, there are several separate buildings, some might be underground. If they were side by side and generally described with building=yes, it is accepted to represent them on the map in this manner. Otherwisethey should be seeprated with precise position. You can help yourself with the great source layer 'Openstreetmap.lu Mapper's Delight LIDAR". It doesn't need to be corrected in its spacial position (no offset), it is by default accurate and doesn't have tilting (for buildings). All others from Geoportail.lu and are fine also (apart the very high buildings), but be careful then with others like Bing etc, they have a tilting and need offset correction.

Hi! Welcome to OSM! I've checked your changeset. Before continuing as contributor, you need to realize that each tag and its geometrical element represents something specific and that the map/data can be seen as a 3D space, meaning various 1D or 2D elements overlapping others. So please, read osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide or read the Basics and Fundamenals in my profile.

Here, the buildings you wanted to specify as apartments should be tagged as building=apartments and the landuse, being rather the land under the buildings, as OSM's Wiki page for the key "landuse" states in its definition, therefore it should be a separate element tagged with landuse=residential. Which is already the case with this MultiPolygon (MP) relation/12650559