Hello! If you would like to show people that the way is private, it's better to insert the tag "access=private" on the ways representing the private portions. Their color will be rendered accordingly thus making it clearer. On a node we don't see such important information. Also any barriers would be welcome. I've corrected. Thanks for your comprehension.

Spotted a few others which will be resolved.

Hello! Why did you change these buildings into a landuse=farmyard (example: way/147511488/history ) ??? Which are already on a farmyard way/147511487.
Non sense... This can be considered as vandalism of OSM's data and degrades the effort put by OSM contributors.

node/1804965807/history

Je crois que je n'ai pas besoin d'en dire plus :) S'il vous plait, faites attention. Merci!

Great! Thanks for letting me know! :)

Hello! Do you know if this way way/332024890 is still a trail path or has it been enlarged by a heavy duty machine? Like this track way/256489414

+ tag corrections

Hello! Why did you delete the paths and steps between the cave node/5622830236 and this intersectionhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/715708236 ?

IGN survey point was not displaced, only edited duplicated description

I will have to revert several of your changesets because the previous situation was clearly more faithful. Please see these 2 comparisons between Strava traces and the Geoportail.lu topo
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/0BzU9J1u6HDyCUW52WU5PYzFoRTg

Please STOP these imports or copies from Geoprotail's topo! It has shown countless errors not faithful to reality on terrain.

Oh OK! Thanks for the information! Since it was partially destroyed and know the present situation, can you please edit accordingly whenever you have time, please?

Ok thank you for the response. But be aware that "impassable" value means that the highway is impassable for all kinds of vehicle... not only for one means of mobility. Each value of the smoothness limits more and more some vehicles.

Why did you put this as "smoothness=impassable"?

way/566105212/history

way/653337442/history

Why buildings inside buildings???

This way an unclassified road??? way/529083083/history
Please respect the tag schemes adopted by OSM's consesus that you can find in OSM's Wiki. I corrected. Thanks for your comprehension.

deleted obsolete elements: unexisting hotel

There was a conflict... Do not know yet what was goign on?

Hello!

Even though this way way/643059839/ may be good for mountain bikes, do not tag it as a cycleway since it is not suited for normal bicycles which may mislead users such as families with their kids, old people, etc with bicycles. It's important to respect the tag definition set by the community in OSM's Wikipedia according reality. I've corrected the tags.

When you create a cycleway, there is no need to add also a "bicycle=yes" or "bicycle=designated", it's obvious that this type of way is for bicycles, no need to make redundant tagging. It's the same for "highway=footway" or "highway=pedestrian", no need to add "foot=yes" or "foot=designated". ;)

Please, also make the distinction between path and track.

Thank you for your comprehension!