Not everybody has the knowledge to see in there. Why should people look in several different places for the same kind of data (historic purposes)? This misleads people! With all due respect, I can't explain in detail because i feel that i've already enough wasted time with futile explanations whereas i think that i did my best to contribute with accuracy as much as possible. If you recall we had a discussion with the fact that at least i comment my edits whereas so many people don't even care. But i can say very simply that the point of a MP is to share the same tags (obviously as you even pointed) and also being able to tag the perimeter with specific features as i did in there.

Unrelated??? Of course they are JUST woods! Would you care to explain me what makes them so special and so individual one from the other??? And if they are not for some very local reason, the MP can still easily be edited by someone who needs to make that specification. You, what you are doing here is just converting the MP i created in simple polygons just for the sake of... being polygons! So in my humble opinion waste time and satisfy one only person who doesn't like working out with MPs whereas it's an elements integrally part of OSM's data. And if you deem that i am not using the element as it should... well i don't think that i am the only one doing so in OSM! There are countless people doing far worse (inaccurate tagging, inaccurate positioning, abusively overlayering elements...).

It was part of this MP relation/6312533
but Woodpeck broke it. As you can see, history doesn't reflect Woodpeck's edits which may mislead on who did the certain edits.

No, it's the same feature, it's supposed to be landuse=meadow. Actually field for pasture and for hay are always entwined and should be considered the same feature with a single element. In reality, farmers alternate this rotation process between pasture and hay (to give the land a rest) on a field to keep the land healthy. I always wanted to add this explanation in OSM wiki, but forgot or didn't have the time.

By the way, by viewing your flawed edits... I think that can you stop looking over my shoulder and patronizing me... I haven't said anything for months, trying to be conciliating. But since you are being hypocrite and quiete disrespectful, enough is enough.

No, i haven't plotted that as a circular track, that's user woodpeck altering and degrading data! I had plotted that element as a MP wood. Something is flawed in the recording process of the history, some edits within MPs are not being recorded.

Also user stereo is making degradations:
changeset/43501833

What's all this non sense???

Guillaume, do you know really what you are doing? You are breaking elements! That's vandalism within OSM data!
way/384165265
And here you are putting layers over layers and fences over fences, is that what you call MP simplification??? That's awkward editing! osm.org/#map=18/49.52468/6.15673 It doesn't look like that you considered the implications and consequences of your actions if everybody would do the same as you, whereas in terms of third party services or server resources.

What else... ??? Can you just stop degrading what has been already plotted and let things as they are...

osm.org/#map=17/49.60357/5.90829

This place was filled with an area element: osm.org/#map=17/49.60999/5.90915

The element which i was talking about and must be grass instead of a service area is this one: way/452158351

Woodpeck your edits are flawed! You are breaking the elements i created! They didn't need any edit! I'm astonished that someone who has such a position like yours within OSMF makes SUCH MISTAKES! This is not right, you made a circular track whereas it's an area of woods: way/431452509
This has been changed in service area whereas i had set it as grass, it's not a wide service area! Proof: https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/57774478
You broke this, not anymore rendered: relation/6312533#map=16/49.6038/5.9320
What else have you boken and isn't anymore faithful to reality...??? By OSM rules and definition you are vandalizing OSM data! Also you didn't reply to my message which is really showing a lack of interest for contributors who devote their time!

Hi!
Why are you adding elements which do not exist? There is no castle on here: node/4449776840
And what about this one?
way/447921578
Also i noticed that you had deleted the grass i had built in here:
osm.org/#map=18/49.75388/6.02764
Then you rebuilt grass incompletely (no grass along the historical site whereas there is). What's the point?
Creating fictive elements and vandalize for no reason data contributed by users is forbidden! Do you have any valid reasons for these edits?

Guillaume, ce n'est pas un logiciel spécifique mais plusieurs services tiers que ce soit logiciel (Garmin) ou online (Openrouteservice.org ou Graphhoper, OSRM... qui sont d'ailleurs liés à Openstreetmap.org ou Gpsies par exemple). Exemple que j'ai mis en place et qui fonctionne avec la Place de la Résistance:
osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=49.49199%2C5.97570%3B49.49281%2C5.97621#map=18/49.49224/5.97625
ou
osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=49.49199%2C5.97570%3B49.49150%2C5.97858#map=18/49.49244/5.97670
C'est clair, net, précis. Sans ces tags et si le routage sera plus court via le périmètre, cela suivra le contour du polygone highway/area et rendra le routage difforme car la forme du polygone est complexe, donc une très mauvaise orientation pour l'utilisateur.
Par contre sur Lux-ville... il y a des problèmes, c'est mal orienté et le routage suis le contour diforme de l'area au lieu d'une orientation directe et claire:
osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=49.61145%2C6.13161%3B49.61170%2C6.13095#map=19/49.61147/6.13114

Bah non pas possible de les virer avant upload ca reviendrait à effacer le code, donc la mécanique.

Oui j'ai vu, mais déprécié n'est pas forcément interdit (highway key can have "user defined" values) et surtout dans ce cas il n'est pas du tout redondant étant donné que je l'ajoute pour éviter que le périmètre de l'area MP ne s'utilise pour du routage (chose impossible avec des simples polygones sauf si périmètre déconnecté de toute route. En plus, ce tag défait le rendering "highway" dans iD, il redonne à la ligne sa forme par défaut, ce qui permet d'éviter des confusions avec un véritable tag highway. Tout ça est déjà synthétisé dans mon commentaire du changeset. Par contre, s'il y a un autre tag favorisé qui permet la même mécanique, je suis preneur et je voudrai bien corriger. Nan je ne joue pas au golf, j'ai roulé dans cette zone il y a très longtemps avant que le terrain ne soit transformé. J'ai fait la mise à jour du coup. Les détails du terrain sont laissés à la discrétion de ceux qui s'y intéressent. ;)

OK! Thanks for the infos!

Hello! Is this really an element that should have the tag natural=cliff? way/406491241

Aussi, aucun besoin d'ajouter foot=yes si le chemin est de base destiné aux piétons. Logique! ;)

Bonjour, j'ai remarqué que vous avez changé le tag de ce sentier: way/405395258/history
Or Footway highway=footway
implique un chemin avec une structure à surface plane strictement réservé aux pédestres (sauf précisions) alors que Path
highway=path s'applique à des chemins pédestres particuliers (sentiers, chemin non spécifique pour cyclistes piétons et chevaux, etc) Il est impératif de suivre ces références sinon les personnes sont induites en erreur lorsqu'ils regardent une carte qui prend en compte ces détails. Merci de votre compréhension!

OK! Thanks for the response!

Hello!
Does this way exist as an independent single trail parallel to the main track or was it the actual large track?
way/427503818
I walked the track not a long time ago and i haven't noticed any single trail, still wondering if i missed it... :)