Yes, rather 5. Fixed. But you can also edit the map, like any OSM user. You see an error - edit.

I'm not sure, but I guess, based on the pictures, that 4.

EinKonstanzer, we are discussing the type of track here.
Is there anything to add in essence? If not, goodbye.

If you are sure, then change.

Looking at Geoportal 2: Orthophotomap (aerial image), the second half of the track is most likely type 5, and the first part is most likely type 4. A field survey is needed.

And if you look at Geoportal 2: Orthophotomap (aerial image)?
It seems to me that all the same 4.

I think it’s not difficult to distinguish type 1 track from type 5 track. There may be an error in determining the type of track 2 with 3, 3 with 4, 4 with 5. In this case, indicating the type of track, this will be more informative for the map user, even if there is an error with determining the real coverage than a track without specifying the type.

It amazes me that you do not offer to add a tag with a request for the need to check the terrain and leave this data, but simply delete it. Do as you see fit. Your right. Someone adds. Someone removes. And so in a circle.

I used the cards currently available. Of course, the exact type of track can only be indicated when exploring the area. But, it seems to me, it would not be worse if I indicate the type of track close to real, than to indicate nothing.

fixed changeset/60050266

Hi. There was no common intersection of lines at the intersection, I corrected, the comment is not entirely correct.
P.S. "Overlay" means the imposition of lines (roads) on each other.

Hello! And thank you!