Moving data to a different tag or altering existing tag structures still modifies the map data and affects route rendering and navigation. Making these structural changes unilaterally—while an active review is underway—is precisely what the community asked you not to do.

The main issue is you know I am actively investigating this route, and you have been explicitly told by two members of the DWG and multiple community members not to make these kinds of changes without first discussing them on the forum and reaching consensus. You have failed to do that, repeatedly prioritizing your own assumptions over local knowledge.

You've also been asked multiple times to refrain from editing in this area, as your edits are degrading data quality rather than improving it. Please stop editing these routes immediately. I will resolve the remaining inconsistencies once I receive the verified information I need from the state.

You say you have a source but don't know how to share it? I'm not going to do the work for you. If you have an image to back up your claim, you can look up how to post it here.

Not all routes are well-signed. That's why I reached out to the city, county, and state regarding US 50—a lack of signage doesn't necessarily mean the route doesn't exist there. It just means it's unsigned. Until I hear back from the state, we won't know which route is official, but I was able to confirm a plausible path using both the CDOT site and Wikipedia, which I cited in this forum post. I gave the city, county, and state that same information, and they are looking into it. When I hear back from them with the official alignment of US 50, I will make the changes accordingly. Please let the locals handle this matter.

Will you please provide the link to Bing Streetside imagery you used so I can confirm it?

As for the Google imagery you're not allowed to use that at all in OSM since it is proprietary data. See here for more info: osm.wiki/Google#:~:text=that%20exception%20applies).-,Google%20Maps%20terms%20of%20use,-%5Bedit%20%7C

May I ask what your source is for this change? Please provide a link to the source.

I am in the process of verifying the routes in the Grand Junction area so please refrain from making any edits. I will make the necessary changes once I have an answer from the state regarding its exact whereabouts.

Thank you,

Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185937912

I did miss that part. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll keep this in mind going forward.

I would like to point out though, that you made changes without first discussion those changes with the community and waiting for a decision which the DWG as well as other community members told you you have to do before making changes. I left your ref change on the link but fixed the classification since that doesn't change. The natural transition from primary to secondary happens at that intersection, not the link.

Please refrain from making any changes without first getting approval from the local community.

And thank you for pointing at that section on the article.

Ref tags aren't commonly used on *_link roads. The tag [destination:ref=*](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination:ref) is used instead, as it indicates where the link leads rather than what the link itself is.

CO 340 extends to the intersection and turns right because that is the main highway. A link (slip road) is just a [connection](osm.wiki/Highway_link#:~:text=the%20linking%20way%20is%20not%20the%20main%20line%20of%20either%20of%20the%20highways%20being%20linked%20but%20forms%20the%20connection%20between%20them) between two highways, not the main highway itself. I've reverted the tags to the previous version to keep it aligned with the wiki guidelines.

Why are you changing street names that have fractions in them? Did you use a specific source to confirm they were written that way?

There's a street sign for F 1/2 Road here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.09904219997199&lng=-108.47785949997001&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=1341192023039605&x=0.39253343336649904&y=0.4305074396092258&zoom=1.6890601589255136 that confirms it was written as it is on the sign before you changed it.

F 1/4 Road was fixed by a local editor once because someone made the same change you did and you reverted their edit seen here: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/16998507. Why did you change it?

Please refrain from making edits without first consulting with the local community.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184244034

May I ask why you made these changes to "F Road" and "Patterson Road"? What source did you use? If you checked the area for Mapillary you would see that your name changes are incorrect. Patterson ends at 31 Road which can be seen here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.0918575&lng=-108.47825645477997&z=18.73858273777371&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=2046420189286556&x=0.7000655745246825&y=0.5104402897733032&zoom=0.6678360891124431 and F Road starts at that point which can be confirmed with the street sign at the next intersection here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.091823897310434&lng=-108.4758595557513&z=18.73913112617126&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=948125487953517&x=0.6931240199597075&y=0.5132472815755722&zoom=0.6678360891124431. "F" is the ref that was given to the entire stretch by the city so why did you remove it and add it as an alt_name?

Please refrain from making edits in this area without first consulting with the local community.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184243619

I did see that you reverted some of Flaps changes SD Mapman. Thank you for that.

In regards to the "Grand Army of the Republic" name change. That is something that should've been discussed either on the OSM Forum or the OSM US Slack because its nationwide and affects multiple communities. I saw that you also incorrectly added "Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway" as the street name for parts of "US 6 & 50" as can be seen here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.11335200745302&lng=-108.64940846262999&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=884343990641540&x=0.37189943923430735&y=0.5107448552082803&zoom=0. This is another name that belongs on the route relation. I saw that you changed the name of the "Grand Army of the Republic" route to "Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway" and SD reverted that change. Please stop adding these names to the highways without consulting the local communities. These names belong on the routes, not the main highway.

Visiting a place does not count as local knowledge. That's a survey. A local would be able to confirm their edits with mapillary or a government source that's usable in OSM. Since this changeset spans across two states its unlikely that this was part of a survey. For future edits please keep them smaller in both size and area so the data stays relevant to the place you are working.

Baconcrisp

I appreciate the response. I checked this morning and none of your edits were reverted like you said. Thank you providing your source for the "Grand Army of the Republic" changes, but you neglected to share your source for the other changes you made in this changeset. I would like to see your source for ALL of your changes in this changeset if you please so I can verify each one. You modified multiple relations, deleted multi-polygons, changed POI tags, modified ref information, modified names, etc. These changes span from Utah to Colorado. Please share your sources for all of these changes.

You also never answered my question about whether or not you consulted with the local communities before making these changes so I'll ask again. Did you consult with these two communities before making these changes?

Baconcrisp

What resource did you use to make these name changes? Did you consult with the local community before making these changes. From what I've most of your changes are incorrect and need to be reverted.

Please link the resource(s) you used and consult with the local community before making any changes on this scale.

Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180334382

Thank you for the explanation. Whereas it is good to preserve historical information, this tag probably could be removed altogether since the street no longer exists.

If you want to preserve this information you can add it to OpenHistoricalMap instead of creating a new tag.

I double checked and there are traffic lights at that intersection which can be seen in available Mapillary(2018) and in Bing satellite imagery(2024). Do you have a more recent verifiable source to confirm this intersection has changed? This is a standard model for these types of intersections in Utah.

I did read your proposal, but its relevance wasn't clear. What you proposed can already be described with current classifications and tags. I also could find your proposal mentioned on the forum or mailing list which is required according to the Proposal Process guidelines here: osm.wiki/Proposal_process. If you really think your proposal has merit you need to follow the guidelines on that page so the community can help you improve it and vote on it.

I understand that part. My question was why you changed the "old_name=*" to a tag you made? The old_name tag was correct as it was.

Hello Flap,

Can you explain why you changed the tag "old_name=*" to "street:old_name=*"? There's no information regarding this tag on the wiki and the only use cases are in this changeset.

What is the purpose of this tag?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173459509

Hello Flap,

I have a question about your tagging. of this stretch of road. According to the wiki, this shouldn't be classified as a motorway since there's an intersection with traffic signals on it which means it would most likely be a trunk or lower.

I also looked into your proposed tag, but didn't quite understand its purpose. Was this discussed on the community forum or somewhere else as mentioned on the Proposal Process wiki pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Mandatory_announcements? I'd be interested to learn more about its purpose and its relevance to the map.

Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173561358

No worries. Thank you for the quick response and fix!

Happy mapping!

Hello Camello_AR!

Can I ask why you changed the oneway tag from "yes" to "no" on this secondary? Based on the imagery and surrounding data context this way should be a oneway since the ways leading to/from this piece are also oneways.

As it is now, routing will be partially confused since there is a bi-directional road in-between two oneways that lead to the motorway.

Will you please fix this when you get a chance?

Thanks,
Baconcrisp
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171112437

Thank you for the quick response. It looks like the plugin I was using assumed the curb was a blocking barrier which caused the "issue". That was my mistake for not noticing that.

The interns tagging scheme is a little odd so if you're alright with it I would like to offer to help tag it correctly as well as offer you assistance with mapping. I work for a local mapping company called Kaart. We have various training materials as well as a team of experienced mappers that can help you out. If that's something you're interested in, just let me know!

Thanks again for the quick response!

Baconcrisp