Hi Kugelbaum,
Thanks for enhancing the trail network but I think you may have with this change accidentally deleted and recreated with a wrong itinerary CFL 15A (Maybe due to confusion with CFL15). You deleted relation/2251561 and recreated it as 18438053. It does not pass Dommeldange despite its name.
Did you find signs in the field that 15A starts in Mersch and goes to Mamer ?
I noticed this today as I was in the process to re-map the CFL route in the field around Dommeldange as it was clearly broken (on intersection node 2344401844 in Eecherfeld it went in a wrong direction not following anymore the clear signposts and not heading to the railway station).
Both routes are by the way as gpx on the CFL web but I did not want to use those due to the restrictive copyright.

Can you please check this and clarify both routes (I can by the way still try to fix it in Dommeldange after I followed all signs to the station provided that the route is undeleted)

I am willing to learn from more experienced mappers - and in general try to map very carefully. Sorry that I took a few days to answer - I only map in my free time.

Note however that I deleted and deactivated nothing. I only used a lifecycle prefix which is documented in the data-model (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix). All features in in a later lifecyle are still supposed to be "verifiable" - so I did not violate that rule. If I remember well - unless I mixed up here a way - things were worse than only a bollard or one single tree. Ok ... I agree - smoothness "very_horrible" (or "impassable") is also indicating that the way is merely unusable. I'll consider that in future.

Hi SHARCRASH,
Sorry, last year when I passed by I had a problems with a a few ways in this this forest which were mostly unusable. I hope I didn't make a mistake and picked a wrong one but they were blocked by several trees lying over the way (so not only one feature) and I had to climb over them (some of these looked like put on purpose to "deactivate" the way by the forest owner). I did on purpose not delete the ways as there were traces visible and used the lifecyle prefix while trying to be as precise as possible following the documentation on wiki.openstreetmap.org. Btw: On my map tool the disused and abandoned features are not deleted but still visible but less prominent - but I know that this is not like that in all tools.
As you just resurveyed this, I suppose you also know that there was a lot of forest work during this spring in this forest - so I assume the ways are again in a better shape than they used to be last year.

In my opinion even Grade 5 ones should be somehow usable and not blocked for all traffic - especially looking at the pictures on (tracktype=*)

By the way : If the way is now again on a good shape, you could also have deleted the comment as that one is not needed anymore. I can also delete it ... but I am not sure when I pass there the next time (and I only do modifications after survey)

I can confirm the 9. It is twice present: On the right door frame as normal blue housenumber sign and as location info on the postbox no54 on the left side of the building - with street name.

If I remember well, I found this 9 either on the right side of the building or in the window of the integrated streetwork office. Thanks for the hint - you are right, this numbering is strange and may be a mistake - I'll re-check in a few days - the next time I'll pass at the station.