This is of course an unfortunate outcome. But this case has been argued so well that to me there can be no other conclusion than that @harahu has edited the map as correctly as possible. Any user deleting or diminishing that path should be considered at fault and be dealt with accordingly by the DWG. 
Finally, this “war” can not be fought on OSM. It has to be dealt with by either the local government or a court.
Sorry I haven’t replied recently but our attention is “somewhat” preoccupied with both Ukraine & now Israel! 
I’d agree that what was done looked good, so will try to get to contacting the party concerned.
Although I’m pretty sure you were joking, I can say as a former DWG member, please summarize, and include a link to the discussion. Ideally link specific points to the posts that back up those points.
I’m sure this will be handled either way with multiple DWG members already aware of the thread, but it is much easier to resolve a case when all the facts are clearly presented.
I feel for you. I’ve had a look at what the DWG is currently fighting, and it does not at all look like fun. I deeply appreciate what you are doing and feel somewhat bad for distracting you (all) from that effort.
I realize that this case is disproportionally time-consuming, and I wouldn’t have taken it this far were it not for the potential the case has for setting a precedent one way or the other. In Norway we’ve had prior incidents similar to this one, so actually going though the effort of discussing this matter will hopefully allow us to define some policy for dealing with similar matters in the future. This, in turn, can contribute to streamlining future dispute resolutions.
Once the dust has settled I’ll probably draft such a policy myself, and present it to the community, in order to ensure there’s something to be gained from all of this.
As mentioned before;This discussion cannot be given any weight as it is not possible to discuss on an equal basis for all parties due to restrictions on the forum. Harahu has sent a letter to the municipality for clarification. In the meantime, I suggest removing the path for the time being.
which forum restrictions make some parties unable to communicate?
can you be specific?
why?
Also, you describe it as suggestion but you already removed it in Changeset: 143117847 | OpenStreetMap without waiting for other opinions (that change was since reverted in Changeset: 143118219 | OpenStreetMap )
Unless important new info will arrive: removal of this path should be treated as obvious vandalism and/or trolling. And path restored. See also qwertet blocked by woodpeck | OpenStreetMap and Turid Nordbye blocked by woodpeck | OpenStreetMap
This forum has user levels. This is a spam protection.
New users like you can post a maximum of 1 image.
To reach the next user level, you simply have to read 5 different topics in this forum (you have already reached all other criteria) - then you can also post several pictures.
Again, my apologies for not being on top of this recently.
To make it perfectly clear to everybody involved, the official view of DWG is that this path, should, at this stage, remain as it is currently mapped: Way: 1217059402 | OpenStreetMap : informal=yes, access=unknown, visibility=bad, pending an official verdict as to allowed access.
Until that verdict has been received and shared with the community as a whole, we would ask that no changes be made either to this section, or to Way: 1217092473 | OpenStreetMap .
Any failure to comply with this request will be viewed very seriously.
(Edit to fix links)
Relevant to this topic: