OK, I see what you mean. I am currently traveling Oman by bicycle and unable to review those changes from my tent, but next time I am staying somewhere stable I will look at those roads again to ensure that link-road tagging is motivated.

This changeset has been reverted by changeset/175793701.

Please respond to changeset comments in order to remain a good-faith member of the community.

My changes were made very deliberately. According to the OSM Wiki, link ways should take the classification of the highest-level way to which they are connected. Thus, for example, a link way joining a primary highway to a tertiary one should be tagged primary_link, etc. It is a simple rule and does not require mappers to think about the "function" of the road.

This is the standard now employed in many of the world's best-mapped countries, and I would urge you to help implement it in Oman wherever it is lacking. Neither foreign mappers nor developers of global navigation aids are likely to know of country-specific quirks.

Why are you adding highway=crossing nodes at intersections of sidewalks and driveways or other minor service ways? For example:

node/6907099584#map=19/34.135201/-118.009412

This is not standard on OSM, and this is the second time that I have seen your team do this recently. If your team cannot use standard tagging approaches, I would have to escalate this to the Data Working Group.

Why did you remove the border-control name= tags from this node?

node/2063357044

I went ahead (changeset/174842033) and deleted the separate cycleways, instead using the cycleway:both=lane and cycleway:both:buffer=yes tags on the roads themselves. This is how such cycleways in SoCal are overwhelmingly mapped.

If you want to preserve the name “North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway”, then please create a new relation with all the road segments that make it up, and add the name there. Was the creation of a relations for California Cycle Route 95 also your work? That will also need to be adjusted accordingly.

I see that you added the North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway as a separately mapped cycleway. This is not ideal IMO: areal imagery shows that generally one is sharing a the road with cars, and the California shared-lane marking is painted one the road. You would be giving bike routers more accurate information by deleting the separate highway=cycleway way, and tagging the road as cycleway:shared lane instead. Of course, you could have the “North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway” itself mapped as a relation.

It would be good if you could go back through your previous edits and remove any crossing=tags you have added at the intersection of sidewalks and service ways. Especially if you are a part of a corporate mapper, just leaving such edits is going to create a lot of ill-will.

Why did you restore a highway=crossing tag to this node:

node/7246160566

Areal imagery shows no formal crossing here. These tags do not need to be added to intersections of sidewalks and driveways (or similar service ways) where there are no markings.

OK, I have seen that you have erroneously deleted this tag from multiple amenity=fuel in Greece. I have reverted your changes in changeset/174032962.

Tagging petrol stations for shops is particularly important for cyclists, who want to know all opportunities for snacks and drinks along a route. If you don’t like my shop=yes tag, which is widely used, then you can tag shop=kiosk or shop=convenience as described on the OSM wiki article for amenity=fuel. Deleting the tag entirely, however, is not appropriate.

Why did you remove the shop=yes tag from this BP petrol station:

> node/4207333701#map=19/38.900456/22.448418

I added that tag based on a personal survey, I saw with my own eyes that this petrol station has a shop.

Your approach of adding individual stop-sign nodes at the stop positions for greater precision is perfectly sound, no complaints there. But even if the new nodes are tagged for direction=forward/backward, that tells nothing of whether the trajector along one of the ways is reaching an all-way stop or a stop that affects only the minor ways, hence the stop=all tag remains a useful piece of information to describe the intersection. You can see that this is commonly done by doing an Overpass API query.

You can do an Overpass

The stop=all tag should be added to the new individual highway=stop nodes you created, and deleted from the node of the intersecting ways.

If you replace a single stop node at an intersection with separate nodes marked direction=forward/backward, then please make sure you copy over the stop=all tag. Your edit at 33.83208, -117.5648 deleted the information that that every stop sign represents an all-way stop.

Why have you removed surface= tags from a number of ways where I had added them based on a personal survey? For example:

way/217879989

Please revert this changeset and be more careful in future.

Do not choose tags based on how the resulting map looks. This is known as “tagging for the renderer” and is a mistake:

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

And remember that the map at openstreetmap.org is just a tech demo, not something that many people actual use. These tags may look completely different in phone map apps like CoMaps or OSMAnd.

With this changeset, you created an amenity=school way that already had amenity=school buildings inside it. This is an error and will automatically create a bug in the Osmose layer, so you are making more work for your fellow mappers.

The correct way to tag a new school area when the schools are already mapped, is the landuse=education tag. I fixed this in changeset/172240275.

According to the OSM Wiki, link ways at at-grade junctions should take the classification of the highest-level road to which they are attached. This is the most common practice internationally. I have therefore reverted your changes back to my earlier correction (trunk_link instead of secondary_link). I have surveyed this intersection personally and found no reason to deviate from the standard tagging.

This tag is expressly marked as deprecated in Vespucci, and I have noticed that mappers are starting to remove instances of it in the well-mapped cities that I follow.

Please stop adding the crossing=unmarked tag. This tag has been deprecated. If you are mapping for a corporate employer, then please communicate this to your manager so that your fellow corporate mappers cease using this tag.