I don't know. It's pretty rural. Given the rather aggressive deletion, I sense a neighbor feud going on.

It would be good to have a neutral party, preferably a known mapper check the status - but, alas, this is rather rural. If there is a barrier or similar, a recent photo would probably be enough to convince us that the road is no longer accessible, which only leaves the question: will it still be accessible for walking, or bicycle?

Either way, retagging to fit the situation is ok, hard deletion is not - partially because it will only lead to someone else seeing the road on the photos and adding it back in. It would also show up as a missing road in the Norwegian road import.

Additional info to note: The source of the road was initially the official road network database (Elveg) https://vegkart.atlas.vegvesen.no/#kartlag:geodata/@300547,6619615,14

Kan du kolla på way/993831184. Ser ut som vägen blivit tunnel under ett dike eller nåt :D Den kom upp här https://maproulette.org/challenge/38460/task/155315059

I was just about to make this change myself :)
However, I have now removed the foot-tags altogether since this road is not intended for walking, even if it is legal. Better to leave it out. The rules for routing are determined based on road class.

I've removed the empty polygons.

Regarding relation/14442220, I didnt create it that way, but I cleaned it up by separating it into two separate relations.

> "Multiple untagged ways and a relation seem unnecessary for something which could be done in multiple areas."

The old polygon was not very accurate. New geometry required a hole in the wood polygon. Inner members are the best way to do this.

Thanks guys for noticing these issues.

Actually, I may have done some actual stuff in the edit. Those untagged polygons were not meant to be in it. I'll try to clean up now. So sorry - very sloppy of me.

Oh my. I must have downloaded the area in a layer with some nonsense in it. So sorry. Please revert. :O

Sorry I didn't see the message until now.

Actually these are supposed to be separated. The old camping site has been demolished and for some time the roads there we just cut off. I'll try to get rid of the demolished roads.

Sorry, wrong account ^ :D

Det var inte alls ordnat. Jag har gått in och fixat lite nu.

:D

finns väl inget namn mitt på vägen :)

Denne vil komme tilbake igjen da adressene importeres fra Kartverket. Du bør heller melde adresseendring til folkeregisteret.

nope! :D https://www.st1.no/stasjoner/st1-arvika

Det beror bara på vart du tittar och vilka åsikter du har. Det finns ingen sanning.

det är dock inte ändringen jag klagar på. bara comment på changeset ;) för det kändes nödvändigt att vara nördig på det

allegedly :)

yep :) node/3031741569

Så ut som du hadde litt trøbbel med skogen her, så jeg lagde et ordentlig hull for bebygget område i Grue Finnskog. Vær forsiktig med å endre på elementer som er medlemmer i "skogen". Det er lett at hele skogen går i stykker. =)

Again, this makes no sense at all. Is it another Wikipedia/SCB-sourced edit?

Were these road segments meant to be "noname=yes"? way/391476281/history (and surrounding ways)

Was this supposed to be "noname=yes"? way/1016649128/