Hi Udarian,

Thanks for the feedback. I changed the classification back to it’s previous state in Changeset: 172003169.

Hi HairyCoo, Thank you for reaching out.

I have reassessed my edits to following your query and observed that the polygon earlier had area=yes and highway=residential tags, while the community guidelines suggest highway=residential tag should not be used on ares. Hence I opted to downgrade to highway=pedestrian, but I'm seeing that it's not the case either. I have made the corrections. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.

Hi Sylabowy Kot, thank you for getting in touch via commenting on the changeset since I am, along with other members of the TomTom mapping team, directly notified that way.
Cross-checking your notes with TomTom proprietary data sources, I cannot confidently verify the addition of the construction tags on that section, since our sources suggest vehicular activity there.
I would recommend to keep the note open for a member of the local community to respond and verify. Alternatively, if you have local knowledge that confirms the section is under construction, you can go ahead and edit. The parking lot will remain accessible via the service road.

Hi fortera_au, Thank you for your observation. I created the missing way as there are painted markings visible in the latest Esri world imagery at -31.9532693, 115.9841392.  I also referred to recent TomTom propriatory traces at this location to support the way's existence here and westerly beyond the road markings I refer to.

Hi fortera_au,

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

Hi rskedgell, On review from your feedback I realized that the dual carriageways should not have been extended and better understand the criteria for dual carrigways in OSM. So thank you for making the corrections.

Thank You for your suggestions. I reverted my changes.

Hi AntMadeira,

Thank you for reaching out to me. I have added the oneway tag to the entire stretch based on the TomTom GPS traces with a high density of traffic flow toward the west side. However, I dug a bit deeper and understood that the small stretch should remain two-way to access the destinations (Estaleiros da Camara). I misinterpreted this due to the very limited traffic flow in the east direction. I have made the corrections.

Hi Spaghetti Monster🍝, whilst making the edits I had some technical issues which prompted me to submit incorrect and incomplete edits which left issues on the map that you identified and commented on. I should have immediately gone back in and made the fixes but I neglected to do so. Now I have made the corrections to resolve the issues you reported and revise the road geometry to reflect the revised road layout.

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

Hi @rskedgell,
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I completely agree with your input. I didn't delete the highway initially because @demisee might have created it for a specific purpose. Since the bus-related details are already correctly present in the route relation, I believe deleting it is the better option. I've made the fixes as per your suggestion. Thank you for guiding me again!

Hi MapGrid,

Thank you for the quick notice and happy mapping.

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

Thank you, Happy Mapping!

Hi bxl-forever, Thank you for your feedback. I modified the geometry and added the barrier tags and I should have included this information in my changeset comment as per your comment.

Regarding the Jersey Barrier, I can see you are absolutely right, as per 2023 Mapillary when looking from a different angle Jersey barrier has moved away and bollards have been installed. I added the jersey barrier according to the 2022 mapillary available at this location as I did not see the alternative newer Mapillary. I have made the corrections.
2022 Mapillary Link: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.85227559997202&lng=4.4230053999999654&z=17&pKey=575946430918402&x=0.8962126640615664&y=0.6052549589602451&zoom=0

Hi KingKratos, I usually update the JOSM version when the new plugin libraries, or platforms that the application relies on are updated and compatible along with a few more bug fixes. In the previous version of JOSM, our technical team observed and suggested not to update the JOSM as it crashes abruptly while loading a few plugins. I am going to upgrade to the latest version once we have successfully tested and the crashing issues are resolved.

Hi KingKratos, Thank you for your feedback. I will look into it and will get back with my version.

Hi Dan_Fi, Thank you for sharing the detailed insight. This is one of the odd instances where my analysis went wrong due to conflict of sources. I will take this into consideration while mapping further. Apology for the inconvenience!

Hi Dan_Fi,

I placed the barrier according to the Wiki barrier=barrier_board. I can see this barrier in the photo from 2023 and as our latest GPS traces show no through traffic, so is supporting the imagery that there is blocked traffic, I concluded that this construction was not of short duration, was still ongoing, and so I applied the barrier. If the imagery was not supported by the GPS traces then I would not have applied the barrier. I would really appreciate it if you would share what you observed while you were there to help me further understand and improve my edits going forward for similar scenarios.

Hi Dan_Fi,
There is a construction barrier visible in Bing Imagery, also we can see the barrier in TomTom ground level image. The TomTom GPS data confirms there are no GPS tracks south-north through the affected way, hence I have added access=no tag. As this construction takes longer than few days I propose to put Barrier=barrier_board and access=no for the part of way heading north from the crossing. Please for review and feedback on my edits. Have a great day.