No problem. Thanks for your prompt reaction and action!

Hi Noelbov, could you please clarify why you deleted the Boschweg (aka Buurtweg 38) on both sides of the Lostraat? Your changeset comment is not really self-explaining :-(
BR,
Toeklk

Hi Joris,
For consistency (fi. with Spitsberg), given 'Veldweg' is compacted, it is rather tracktype=grade2 (or even 1) I would suppose? Or is there such a large difference in maintenance between these?

Had a closer look, and you mapped it correct (ie. the fietssnelweg is indeed a new way next to way/1060546840 and (a part of) way/23443349 . See also way/23443349/history (so it seems like Polyglot might have added some pics in the meanwhile)

Hi pistepilvi, you probably want to use the genus tag instead of the name tag genus=*

Hi Zander12,
A note was created by a user stating that the name "De batsboom" is not known by anybody. A quick google search could not point me to this name. Could you explain where you found the name of this tree? Is it signposted, or ...

Hi Thierry,
I passed here yesterday and could see some initial signs of works, but the path is still fully accessible, right? it even looks as if the cycle highway will be adjacent to the current path?

Neen. @joris: de tag oneway=yes is enkel bedoeld om te gebruikt wanneer er een verkeersbord staat (en dus enkel van toepassing op voertuigen), zie oneway=*

Looks ok to me!

Test message well received

Dear Adri2984, I was informed that you contacted the DWG after the block. Once more: Could you please share your arguments here why you think these paths ought to be tagged as private?
Cher Adri2984, Le DWG m'a informe que vous les avez contacte a propos cette discussion. Pourriez-vous expliquer pourquoi vous estimez que ces sentier doivent etre marques comme prive?
Bav

Bonjour, est-ce que tu es sur que le track 797854382 est prive? Je suis passe la aujourd'hui et je n'ai rien vu. En plus, ca voudrait dire que
Sentier n°i3 est non accessible du cote sud?

Hi, are you sure
way/83634583682 is private? I couldn't find any signs on ground?

Reverted in Changeset changeset/120383147

Informed DWG today after discovering paths are once more set to private without discussion or rationale

https://purews.inbo.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/5369946/Baet_etal_2007_BosreservaatPruikenmakers.pdf Figuur 5-41

Hi Adri2984, I've partly reverted your changesets for paths where I could not find any sign(post)s on the ground that they are private. See changeset/117654445 . In case you disagree, please provide some proof that these paths are indeed on private property!
BR,
Toeklk

Hi Adri2984: Kind reminder for the above questions! And a merry christmas and happy new year!
BR
Toeklk

Update 11/12/2021: Went on ground, but couldn't find any signposting.

Dear Adri2984: In addition, can you provide some 'proof' the paths you deleted are really private? I've received several questions from people wondering why the router does not use these paths, although no signposts are present according to them.

Is there as signpost that says these paths are private, are the paths located on your private property (and if so, can you prove this)?

TIA,
Toeklk

I stand corrected. There is indeed a 3rd track (yet very "unmaintained"). Sorry for the noise