Hi fortera_au,
Thank you for your feedback. I referred to the latest GPS traces and removed the tertiary_link because I couldn't observe any traffic using it. However, I agree that the satellite imagery supports the physical existence of the link on the ground.
I'll restore the tertiary_link. If you have local knowledge of this location, could you please let me know if there are any access restrictions or other tags that should be applied so that the routing accurately reflects the real-world situation without impacting navigation?

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

Yes, I also reversed the way. The current state of the data looks in agreement with the GPS traces available to me. Please let me know if I'm missing anything or any further changes are needed.

Hi felipeeugenio,
I referred to the OSM Wiki guidance (oneway=-1) for oneway=-1, and my understanding is that it’s generally better to avoid using it unless there’s a specific reason or special case that requires it. Based on that, I updated the data by reversing the way and using oneway=yes instead.
Happy to hear your thoughts if you see it differently.

Hi d_berger,

Thank you for reverting the changeset. The roundabout tag was already existing before my edit. The GPS traces were also suggesting a circular fashion of movement, so I went on to modify the geometry to a circular shape. Thank you for clarifying the situation and share your local knowledge with me.

I initially misinterpreted the situation and removed the segment based on lack of GPS traces. I understand your reasoning. Changeset reverted to its previous state to reflect the physical situation.
With your local knowledge of the area, would you suggest to keep the construction tags, or would disused:* prefix be more appropriate? Please let me know and I’ll be happy to carry out the necessary updates accordingly.
disused:=**

Hi Eddie845, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi rene78,
Thank you for making the corrections. I referred to the satellite imagery layers in my edit, you are correct. I’ll be more aware to check for other sources from the ground where possible.

Hi rene78, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you

Hi DarkNark,

Thank you for letting me know about the status of IGN imagery. I was also able to verify your remark later on from recent GPS traces. I’ll be more aware while working with IGN imagery

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

Hi ika-chan!,

Thank you for making the corrections. I acknowledge that I misinterpreted the highway alignment and incorrectly modeled the intersection. I will be more careful while aligning junctions going forward.

Hi ika-chan!, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you

Hi Carto'Cité, thank you for making the corrections.

Hi sanchi,
Thank you for reverting the changeset. I mistakenly deleted the link, and I understand the connectivity based on the road markings. I will be more aware of this in similar situations.

Hi santamariense,

I agree with your comments and I have made the corrections accordingly. The highway section is restored and tagged as disused:highway=trunk_link. Let me know if it’s a better approach.

Hi Frank Peng, thank you for making the corrections. I will be more aware of memberships of objects within relations in my future edits.

Hi felipeeugenio, thank you for reaching out. I have added the tag based on TomTom’s GPS data, showing no traffic in the sections. I should have clarified this on my changeset comment. If you have local knowledge of the area and the links are open to public access, or have different access restrictions, please let me know and I would update accordingly.

Hi GrabMY_ainayusof, thank you for making the corrections with your local insights.

Hi hlfan,

Thank you for your corrections and for capturing fresh imagery from the ground to guide other mappers.