@4004 thank you for the message, good eye on that. I just updated it with a minor adjustment to align/straighten the footpath and connecting way

@Muralito - I see what you mean there. I reverted the changeset as it was before. Thank you for catching that!

Hello Mariotomo, I did not have any other ref sources at the time of this edit other than the presence of ref 2 on the adjoining way (way/557146468).

Junction has been updated!

@ Mars-Curaçao

Thanks for the comment! It would be greatly appreciated if feedback or information is provided with feature ID’s and OSM standards from the OSM wiki.

@1T-money, Incidentally, all values from another segment were likely copied and applied to this segment when carrying the ref tag over. Thank you for catching that!!!

@ff5722 - Thank you for catching that. There maybe some instances I didn't recognize a bidirectional flow on the motorway link.

@AUV - Thank you for the messages and expressing concern regarding the layer and oneway tags. I reviewed the changeset you are referring to and see that you made adjustments on some layer tags. E.g. way/358191813 you corrected the elevation layer tag from 1 to layer 2; looking back on the history of that specific Way; the value was set to 4 by user 方恨少. In that case I should have left it at the higher value as the bridge potentially passes over a feature(s) or element(s) whose value(s) are greater than 2 or 3

I see in other cases where you removed the layer tag value that is needed. If tag “bridge = yes” or “tunnel = yes”; it is better to have an elevation value assigned. ....“Although some map rendering and quality assurance services assume that bridges and tunnels are at layers +1 and -1 respectively, it is better to explicitly state the layer for all bridges and tunnels”; thus my reasoning for (a few of) the following Ways you changed: way/543108342; way/325665325; way/325665324
Although, it was my mistake for changing an existing layer value whose number is different than “1 or -1”, as that should remain the same as previously tagged unless otherwise verified by a credible/local source. Regarding features with an implied one way direction; should always indicate the direction of travel with the “oneway=yes” tag. see link for guidance highway=motorway#Implied_values. Furthermore, if a tag is optional and simply enhances the quality of the map, it is not necessary to bring attention to it or delete/change information that is supplemental.

If you have further questions/concerns going forward please turn to the wiki page layer=*; junction=roundabout#Roundabouts;

@Lexus8 - Thank you for your feedback and my apologies for the difficulty. When I downloaded data through overpass query “unclassified” ways were omitted so it appeared as though those roads had not been created; hence the reason for the duplication you had brought to my attention. As a result I have reverted the change sets. I am not local within your area, so please feel free to share any resources that could help me better understand the road network within your region. Thank you once again and my apologies!

@Lexus8 - Thank you for your feedback and my apologies for the difficulty. When I downloaded data through overpass query “unclassified” ways were omitted so it appeared as though those roads had not been created; hence the reason for the duplication you had brought to my attention. As a result I have reverted the change sets. I am not local within your area, so please feel free to share any resources that could help me better understand the road network within your region. Thank you once again and my apologies!

@Luxus8 - Thank you for the comment. The idea behind the change was made based on the purpose of the road over the condition of the road. However, now looking at it again I could see it go either way. I would be happy to change it back as you see fit. Let me know - Thanks.