I made the changes based on visual assessment and GPS traces, but you’re correct to state that I shouldn’t have missed checking the existing source tags. I’ll be sure to check the existing source citations and be more cautious in my future edits.

Hi ⇄ john paul jones & gringo, thank you for reverting the changeset and bringing the Lincolnshire County Council PRoW dataset into my attention. I’ll be more careful in similar situations and I will let my colleagues editing in the area about the dataset, if they’re not already aware.

Hi ⇄ john paul jones & gringo, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi Norgis,

Thank you for correcting the data and letting me know about the Norway highway classification guidelines. I appreciate the clarification and will be more careful while making similar edits in the future by referring to the country-specific classification guidelines.

Hi Yukiro, while removing the spike present on the polygon, I accidentally removed part of the building as well. I've reverted the data to its previous version.

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

Hi Eric Royer, I misinterpreted the situation after I saw the segment had connectivity to tertiary roads. Thank you for reaching out and clarifying the classification of MD references. I have made the corrections according to your guidance.

Hi Saftsemmel, thank you for reaching out. I overlooked the tunnel tag and and fixed non-existing issues. Changeset reverted to its previous state. Thank you for your understanding.

Hi SomeoneElse. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. I’ll be more careful about broken relations and other validation issues going forward.

Hi Rom1. I misinterpreted the classification continuity and upon review, I agree with you that I shouldn’t have changed the classification. Thank you for your feedback, and thank you for making the corrections.

Hi gurglypipe. Upon review, I agree that it was a misinterpretation on my end. Happy to see that is is already resolved. Thank you for your feedback. I’ll be more aware in my future edits.

Hi AndersAndersson. Thank you for explaining the function and connectivity, and thank you for making the corrections.

Hi Till_btn, thank you for sharing the detailed review. I have made the corrections based on your observations. Please let me know if there are other things I should address in the data.

Hi Marvk, thank you for making the corrections. That was a misinterpretation of road class continuity on my end. I’ll be more aware of the layout and connectivity moving on.

Hi Senihtu, thank you for your kind warning and bringing the issues to my attention. I’ll address the broken routes and ensure to be more diligent on quality checks before uploading my edits.

Hi Gazer75, thank you for making the corrections. I misinterpreted the available sources, both internal and public, and changed the highway classification incorrectly. You remark on imagery sources for Norway is also duly noted. I’ll take extra caution in my edits going forward.

Thank you for your feedback regarding this. The sections were clearly visible on ESRI Imagery but it might be possible that I misinterpreted construction activity as vehicle traffic from the GPS traces I used.
I am seeing that another user has already attempted to fix the situation by adding disused:* prefix to the segments. Please let me know if it is agreeable to you.

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

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

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