Please do let me supplement this case w the cs in which you were vandalising (vandalism = because it took other mpppers time and effort to restore the orig data). So that we know what we are talking about:

a) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101877215

b) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=99671779

c) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=99672241

d) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101874492

e) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=100832540

f) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101843824

g) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=118911848

i) https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120782789
This cs wasn't appreciatet by an other mapper either; take a look att their comment on your "fix"-cs: way/736830291.

Thank you!

It's a bit tragic:

a) in your argument in your last before the last comment you are acknowleding what I am saying all along; you are in for changing correct tagging; that's your business,

b) you seem to be unaware of what an edit war is.

Don't construct a victim-ship for yourself! Within 4 hours after I had - correctly - tagged this way w "path" you "dared to disagree" by changing to "cycleway". You could simply not abstain. You did not correct an error of mine by doing this.
Mind you it is easy to retreive the changesets in which you on a rather big scale changed from "path" to "cycleway". By this you were daring to show your disagreement (your words). But again, it was not any error-correction from your part - for which I had been greatfull - but tampering with correct tagging.

Again: it is repeatatly and consistant tampering with correct tagging from your side which I am against. Nothing else.

So you are acknowleding that you "dared to disagree" (by changing my correct tagging, mind you, not wrong tagging). Your retagging of correct tagged ways is what is at heart.
It is one thing to correct wrongly tagged objects. But it is a totally other thing to alter correct tagging for personal preference as you were doing.
By consistantly, I mean consistantly. You were for some time making a "grand journey" on the on the west coast of Sweden so to say. And by far the most editing you were engaged in at that instant was retagging from "path" to "cycleway". I know as you know this, because I did the revert changes after your edits which showed your "disagreement".
It is this behavior I am against. Once again: repeatatly and consistantly changing correct tagging because you favour another tagging.

By the way. The water outlet, which you refered to as fountain, isn't this an outlet for watering animal pets? In this case "drinking=no" refers to humans as the outlet is rather near the ground. Or is my recollection wrong?

It is not a question of disagreement, but of you consistently changing correctly tagged ways because you personally favor an other way of tagging. The worst thing is you do not state this explicatly and give reasons for this, but rather you comment this with "fix". This could well be deemed as vandalism or at least lack of respect for other users edits.
But let's wait and see what DWG has to say about this.

Well don't use fountain when it's not a fountain.

I do see this as a vandalism light from your side. This is not the first time you did this. My tagging was totally correct as seen in:

a) highway=path#Usage_as_a_universal_tag

b) osm.wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren

So there is absolutly no reason att all for you changing correct tagged ways only because you prefer an alternative tagging. As you have done this earlyer in grand style otherwhere I will report this to DWG.

This way was tagged by me as a combined foot- and cykelway, according what the wiki states. This was a correct tagging. Why would you change to cycleway with comment "fix"?

Again; why are you tagging this as a fountain (it is not) and why are you tagging this as drinking water no (which it is)? https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domkyrkobrunnen

Tack för ditt svar! Frågan varför du taggade om vägen till en ren cykelväg när du själv hade konstaterat att skylten D6 fanns på plats kommer väl aldrig att få ett svar ...

Känner du till skyltningen på stället? Jag har taggat om till gc-väg. Gör gärna en koll: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.340721,17.6955271,3a,30.2y,300.42h,87.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh6AZwKToHXkwK0-NfsFgBA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dh6AZwKToHXkwK0-NfsFgBA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D15.76761%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=sv

Hej, så routing för fotgängare är inte viktigt? Routingen för dem till busshållplatsen fungerar inte längre sedan du bytte till "cycleway" tillsammans med "bicycle=yes". Vad var anledningen till att du bytte från "footway"+"bicycle=yes" till "cycleway"?

Ja, ich bin mir bewusst, dass das Aufteilen der Strasse nicht geht. Ich habe den maxheight-tagg weggenommen ausser direkt unter der Bruecke.

Hallo, pass auf. ich habe recht viele maxheight in Göteborg getaggt. Wenn du in die wiki reinschaust wirst du merken, dass maxheight-tags nur auf gerade der strecke "unter" dem Höhenhinderniss getaggt werden sollen. Nicht den maxheight-tagg auf der ganzen Strecke, die nichts mit dem Hinderniss zu tun hat. Oder hat sich da etwas geändert? Ich finde das gar nicht gut wie du dies hier auf ganzer Strecke getaggt hast.

..ah, dann verstehe ich wie so etwas zustande kommt. Vielen Dank. Auf gutes, weiteres Gelingen!

way/1075487253

Wieso setzt du hier einen Node ein, der dasselbe Beschreibt wie die Tags fuer das Gebäude?
Sei so nett und radiere deine völlig ueberfluessige Node.

Du har även taggat om varenda väg i det här kvarteret och i grannkvarteret från path till residential (way/514866096).
Varför? Det här är inne i ett bostadskvarter. Varför tyckte du det passar bättre med bilväg här?