Hello Gaung Tebono,

I see that you have reverted some classification changes that I and some of my other team members made in the Ngawi area (osm.org/#map=11/-7.4102/111.4673&layers=N). The current classification hierarchy in this area does not match local or global policy for highway classification. I would like to hear your thoughts on my message to you here (changeset/178496473).

My team and I are planning to make some additional edits to better align the data in this area to global and Indonesian tagging policies.

Hi Gaung Tebono,

I noticed some recent classification changes to secondary around the Ngawi area (node/1565413690) that I wanted to get some insight on. For example roads (way/151571138 and way/675342640) were upgraded to secondary, but seem better suited to their previous residential classification. The OSM Wiki describes secondary roads as highways that “are not part of major routes, but nevertheless form a link in the national route network.”(highway=secondary). Guidelines for the residential classification note that “Most traffic on a residential road will be for the access to residential properties. Roads carrying primarily through traffic, or non-residential traffic, should be tagged with a different highway tag” (highway=residential).

The Indonesian tagging guidelines for roads further clarifies that secondary roads are to connect "one district to another” and tertiary roads are described as "Roads between villages (desa) outside urban areas. Usually legally classified as Primary Local Roads." (osm.wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Roads).

Based on the apparent function and connectivity of the roads in quetion, and considering the overall road hierarchy in the area, they seem to align more closely with residential, tertiary, or possibly unclassified. Would you be open to reconsidering and potentially restoring these roads to their previous classification?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you!

Hello, I came across your edits in the Correntina, Brazil area.

I noticed that you removed some roads such as way/376999447 and replaced it with new roads way/1426903583, way/1425373102 which now have different road names. I was wondering what your source was for these new road names? The OSM Wiki has an article on the importance of history retention which highlights preserving the feature itself and only updating it’s tags. This way, other mappers can see how a feature has changed over time. You can find the article here: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20make%20sure%20to%20preserve%20the%20identity%20of%20an%20element%20even%20when%20its%20tags%20become%20different.

I also saw that the name tags added to these roads that look like address data:
way/1428329570
way/1428357008
way/1428357007

Would this be better as a separate tag instead of as a name tag, such as Addresses or description tagging described here: osm.wiki/Addresses and description=*. Maybe this data should be on address features instead of highway features? The address data may be private information.

There are also some areas with disconnected and floating highway data:
node/13128918588
node/2995690935
node/13128852317
node/3353795581

I look forward to hearing from you.

Hello user_5359,

I am not familiar with the air_quality tags as I am not the user who added those in. I only removed the highway tag from way/1218940743 since the newly added highway=trunk tag would create overlapping highway data with the existing primary roads.

Mapillary

Open Street Cam

Maxar Premium Imagery (1.36, 4.93); Strava

Mapbox Satellite Imagery

Maxar Premium Imagery (-3.76, -4.51); Strava

DigitalGlobe 2019-5-18

Correction: Strava was used for this alignment