Hi Raphael,

Thank you for your intervention, insightful observations and the resources, specially for reminding the hiking route!

Yesterday on site, panomaric photo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpjEvwsyQRs8e_vfuoVtBR9ld00FKJX2
On the other side we can see 2 trails from a vehicle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U3X8Ch1MVh44yilQ6fmpQC1AJc3yi0Kx The original contributor added it as track and when I passed by years ago, it had clear trails from a vehicle, visible on 2018's aerial photos. I would guess that on rare occasions a vehicle passes here to directly reach the northern field instead of making the complicated manoeuvres around the building, no other entrance because of the river. In this case, I don't care if we add it as track or path as I guess this portion will be very rarely used by large vehicles to access the field, it seems at rest and there are wetland portions but it's not a dedicated footway, there is nothing stating so or forbidding any other kind of user. The anti-bicycle comment is irrelevant and even inappropriate. 

@Kugelbaum AKA tomolobla, AKA ltwo, AKA grauwutayette, AKA eyasonu and other sock puppets... Well done for showing once again that you make subjective edits and comments, specially anti bicycles. Care to explain why you deleted the way and deviated the hiking route? 


