Hello NunoCaldeira! I apologize for any confusion. To clarify, the existing destination relations (relation/12725243) and (relation/12733136) are both for maneuvers traveling south towards Chão da Ribeira. I mention destination tagging on bidirectional (way/204537049) since if you’re driving east on it, you would be notified that you’re traveling towards Chão da Ribeira when you’re actually driving away from it. What do you think about removing destination tagging on bidirectional ways, and adding them as relations going forward? Thank you and happy mapping!

Hello NunoCaldeira! I noticed that you added “destination=Chão da Ribeira” on (way/204537049). Eastbound drivers on this way might be told they’re driving towards Chão da Ribeira, when they’re actually traveling away from it. I saw these relations (relation/12725243) and (relation/12733136) that are based on the direction of travel. What do you think about removing destination tagging on bidirectional ways, and adding them as relations going forward? Thank you and happy mapping!

Hello NunoCaldeira. Thank you for letting me know. Happy mapping!

Hello NunoCaldeira! I noticed that many of the ref tags in Azores and Madeira are being updated to remove the spacing. However, Mapillary from 07/13/24 (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=8423728917638113) shows road signage using ref formatting that includes spaces. I was wondering if there is a particular reason you could share for removing the spacing? Also, do you plan to apply this change consistently elsewhere, such as (way/26355360) where the associated relation (relation/2742099) has the spacing removed? Thank you and happy mapping!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Hello LovenOutdoors. There is a revert tool in JOSM (osm.wiki/Change_rollback) but you can also manually change the data back to its previous state. If you don’t feel comfortable doing so, I’m more than happy to do it for you. Happy mapping!

Hello MK 1, thank you for the response. Generally, it is best to tag features as they appear on signs. Are you aware of any street-level imagery (osm.wiki/Street-level_imagery_services) or government resources that verify these unique ref values? For example, Mapillary from July 2025 (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2299428057138855) confirms the A1 ref value near (way/1352503199).

Hello LovenOutdoors, thanks for the reply! Unfortunately, Google Maps is not licensable for use in OpenStreetMap, and data from proprietary sources/maps should not be used to support edits (osm.wiki/Don%27t_copy_from_other_maps). Do you have any official government documentation or ground-level imagery from publicly citable OSM-compatible sources (osm.wiki/Street-level_imagery_services) that could confirm these ref updates? Thank you and happy mapping!

Hello, LovenOutdoors! I noticed you changed and added some ref tags in northern Cyprus. Some examples include ref=İK.05 to ref=D925 around (way/309612555), ref=D.55 to D 950 (way/1005400399 to way/965339335), ref=D.10 to D100 (way/806363590 to way/1244083914). I was wondering if you could provide some street level imagery or official documentation that reflect these changes. Thank you and happy mapping!

Hello MK 1, thanks again for responding. I have not found any evidence of decimal refs on https://roads.org.mk/ or in the most recent street-level imagery. Could you please link the RAMS report you mentioned that has refs with decimal values? If these decimal refs are just historical values, it seems the old_ref= tag (ref=*) would be more accurate. Thank you!

Hello MK 1, thanks again for responding. I understand that you are saying the branches of main roads had ref values with decimal points during the former Yugoslavia ref scheme, but I am not aware of any available resources that show this is how they should be tagged in present day. For instance, [04/27/21 Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=226518595515105) located around (way/989399535) is showing signage stating that the branching (way/1264968861) should have ref=A3. This is reinforced by (http://62.77.137.99/roads/files/Sections/RAMS_report-Section__1042.pdf), (http://62.77.137.99/roads/files/Sections/RAMS_report-Section__1043.pdf), (http://62.77.137.99/roads/files/Sections/RAMS_report-Section__1044.pdf), and this interactive map (http://62.77.137.99/pesr/webgis/#/map). To follow OSM’s on the ground principle (osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Good_practice), are you aware of more recent street-level imagery or official government resources that reflect the decimal point refs? Thank you!

Hello MK 1, would you be able to provide the resources that state the ref tags for these branches have decimal points in them? It seems like there’s been some contention over these different ref tags in the past. To reiterate, this government resource (http://62.77.137.99/roads/index.php) refers to (way/440507480) as A3 and not A3.1. According to (osm.wiki/Good_practice) it might be best to reach a consensus with the rest of the community before changing the ref tags like this. Thank you for responding and I look forward to hearing from you again.

Hello MK 1! I noticed that you’ve updated ref tagging to formatting that doesn’t appear on this government resource (http://62.77.137.99/roads/index.php). For example, you updated ref=A3 to ref=A3.1 for (way/440507480) and ref=R29277 to ref=R1311.1 (way/1318176273). I haven’t seen any ref tagging with decimal points and numbers after them so I was wondering if you could provide resources that reflect these changes. Thank you.

Thank you for your response. I can change this to primary for the time being and monitor the construction progress as I agree that trunk will be a good classification once construction is finished along this whole stretch.

Hello da7282,

I noticed that you made some reclassification edits on sections of R28 between Ağdam (node/1434761991) and Yevlax (node/227127401). Sections of ways were changed from primary to trunk, leaving inconsistency in the classification network on this stretch of road. What do you think of reclassifying the extent from (way/1423450322) to (way/881991340) and (way/894100365) back to primary? Also, there seems to be access=no and motor_vehicle=no tagging on (node/1348017781). What do you think about removing that tagging as this is part of the drivable network? Thank you and happy mapping!

Hello MaxR_6429.

I noticed you opened up Horadiz-Cəbrayıl-Zəngilan-Ağbənd yolu. According to various articles from 2025-09-16 (https://report.az/en/infrastructure/horadiz-jabrayil-zangilan-aghband-road-95-complete, https://report.az/en/infrastructure/horadiz-jabrayil-zangilan-aghband-road-95-complete), the highway is 95% complete, and given this is such a long stretch of highway, it seems it may be early to open the road here. Are you able to confirm this is open to all traffic?

Thank you for confirming this highway is open. I’ll remove the access=no tag.

Hello Arber V,

I noticed you added access=no to 34km of the Superstradë Qukës–Qafë Plloçë primary highway, but I saw an October 2nd news article (https://politiko.al/english/e-tjera/rama-e-inaguroi-pak-dite-me-pare-shembet-rruga-ne-aksin-qukes-qafe-plloc-i541506) that mentions only one out of three lanes is closed. It appears this access=no tag should be removed, but please let me know if you are aware of any evidence that shows this highway is closed.

Hello muralito, I was using this Mapillary from April 19th, 2024 (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1291919368413481) in my citation. It shows two signs showing that the directionality has reversed. Please let me know if this has changed. Thank you for reaching out to me.