Thanks for checking and confirming the update eggie.

I understand the situation much better now. Thank you for taking your time to describe it in great detail eggie!

Noted eggie! Thanks for sharing your observations and keeping me updated as well. Much appreciated.

Hi eggie! Thank you for taking the time to check and share your observations with me!
One curiousity on my end: one end of the street designates destination access, and the other end no access for motor vehicles.
Wouldn’t it make sense that both ends should have been consistent?
Also, if both entrances designate slightly different access restrictions, how would you suggest it should be reflected on the road segment?
All the best.

Thank you for the context eggie. I’d be grateful if you’d also share your observations with me after you check the area. Cheers!

Hi Baloo Uriza, I realized that I had unnecessarily and unintentionally moved some nodes. I truly appreciate your nudge on both changesets. I will be more aware in similar situations.

Noted, along with Changeset: 186061776. Thank you for your nudge to bring the issue to my attention.

Hi Alshowaiey, thank you for getting in touch. Based on the most recent satellite imagery, I interpreted the situation as the road does not exist anymore and the current layout as temporary tracks within a construction area. Please let me know if you have other suggestions.

Hi Alshowaiey, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi eggie, I changed the tags based on seeing the traffic sign restricting access on street-level imagery. Upon checking further, I understand “uitgezonderd bestemmingsverkeer” below the sign means “except local traffic”.
Would you think motor_vehicle=destination and bicycle=destination be more appropriate in this case, instead of *=permit?

Hi Baloo Uriza, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi Baloo Uriza, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi eggie, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hello Warrior302,
Thank You for your contribution. I have fixed the validation error related to buildings intersection. Make sure to fix all validation errors before uploading a changeset.
Happy Mapping!

Hi Herr Bause, thank you for making the corrections and highlighting the tagging scheme for tram crossings. Noted on my end.

Hi Herr Bause, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi toster234,
While combining the driveway connections, I realized TomTom proprietary GPS traces showed very recent vehicular activity. Thinking that the construction is completed, I removed the construction tags. Thanks a lot for the photos you provided, they are very helpful. I have made the corrections and reverted the construction status.

Based on the ground-level imagery, this junction cannot be classified as a mini_roundabout, as it is not traversable. And since there are yield signs, it can be identified as a roundabout. junction=roundabout also provides photographic examples to help editors decide. I suggest creating a circular polygon with a roundabout tag to accurately represent the traffic flow.

Hi René84828, thank you for reaching out. Since the centre island is traversable, I converted it to a mini roundabout, in accordance with the documentation on OSM Wiki (highway=mini_roundabout). Please let me know if you are thinking different, I’ll be happy to discuss.

Hi Tomas Straupis, thank you for reaching out and thank you for making the corrections. I have reviewed the discussion on K-modeling (osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:junction%3Droundabout#Connecting_ways_to_roadabouts) and this junction looks like it falls within that definition.