Thank you!

Hi IoTWorkHub,

I came across this changeset and noticed that the names were removed from ways 803149875, 803149883, and 1214692472. I also noticed that ways 889171944 and 803149925 were upgraded to highway=secondary, although parts of these roads appear to be inaccessible to vehicles.
Would you consider reviewing the classification to see if it better reflects the roads' intended purpose? According to the OSM wiki highway=secondary, highway=secondary is generally used for roads linking larger towns or, in urban areas, for arterial roads of lesser importance than primary roads.
Could you also share any sources or references that support removing the road names? I'd be interested in understanding the reasoning behind that change.
Thanks!

Hello Wilmer Osario,

I came across your changeset/186350184 and changesets 181960568 and noticed that you have added access=no tags on multiple of the residential and living streets. For example way/1505387766 and way/1544596215.

According OSM policy, access=no is typically reserved for cases where a road is completely inaccessible—for example, when it’s closed with barriers and “Road Closed” signs due to severe damage or long-term construction, where there’s a physical obstruction that prevents anyone from getting through. access=private#Relation_to_access=no

What do you think about maybe changing these to access=private? Or do you have any resources or insight you can share so I can understand these changes better?

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

Hi IoTWorkHub,

I noticed a few classification changes in your changeset/185950050 and changeset/186376644 changesets that I was hoping you could provide some additional context on.

Specifically, way/169263518 and way/170134639 were changed from unclassified/tertiary to secondary, while way/420552681 remained unclassified, which appears to have created a classification gap. The characteristics of the road also seem somewhat different from the typical use of highway=secondary. According to the OSM Wiki, secondary highway tagging is generally used for roads that are paved, have at least one lane per direction (usually separated by a central line), and are often assigned a highway reference number (highway=secondary).

There are also several roads, including way/419269302, way/537431130, way/150204998, way/way 419269295, that were upgraded from primary to trunk. These appear to function as frontage roads alongside the major Vía Perimetral highway. Based on the OSM Wiki guidance on frontage roads, these would generally be expected to have a lower classification than the major highway, so I was curious about the reasoning behind these changes (osm.wiki/Frontage_road).

Similarly, the links on way/419271681 and way/419269307 were upgraded to trunk. As these roads appear to provide connections between the trunk dual carriageways, link seems the more appropriate classification.

Finally, multiple highways around way/1036611275 and way/1036611274 were upgraded from tertiary to primary, while way/889496256 remained tertiary. This seems to have resulted inconsistent classification and connectivity.

Could you please share some context on the reasoning behind these edits? I’d really appreciate any additional resources or local knowledge you can provide, as it would help me better understand the intended mapping approach.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you!

Hi GabiruX!
I came across your recent changesets (changeset/184158634, changeset/183734404, and changeset/184358519) where you mapped several ferry routes, including way/1529934515 , way/1526718183 , and way/1531041316

I wasn't able to verify these ferry routes, and I also couldn't identify any ferry terminals or other indications of ferry access in the available imagery. I was wondering if you could share any additional sources or local knowledge that support these additions. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Hello rodolfovargas, I noticed that in your changesets changeset/184396747 and
changeset/184454259 you modified the classification of the ways at the roundabout to links and also at the T intersections. Specially at way/1528166530 , way/858803546 , and way/439763314.
According to OSM policy junction=roundabout#Selection_of_the_right_highway_tag
the highway classification should generally continue through the intersection to maintain consistency and preserve the continuity of the roadway hierarchy. I also noticed that road names have been removed from some of these highway segments, which is creating naming gaps along the route.
Could you please clarify the reasoning behind these edits? I would appreciate any additional context so that I can better understand the intended mapping approach.
Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

Hello Merd123,

I came across your recent changesets:
changeset/183809933
changeset/183808723
and noticed that you added additional ref tags such as C-1 and R-5 and R-3 on multiple highways. This may have created some inconsistencies. For example on way/247075486 you added the R-5 ref tag over the 509 while on way/247075485 and south that only showing as R-5. Also the 512;C-1 ref tag terminates on way/1092516667 but then resumes again on way/218844572 creating a large gap in between.
Would you mind clarifying whether these tagging differences were intentional? If there are any sources, references, or local information that guided these edits, I would be grateful if you could share them so I can better understand these refs.

Thanks, and happy mapping!

I appreciate your response. I understand that some of your sources may be paper-based. However, since these are not easily reachable by other contributors, could you please provide more details about them (such as the name, issuing authority, and publication date)?

If this is part of a consistent approach or dataset, it might be beneficial to document it on the Cuba OSM wiki page so other mappers can better understand and follow the same logic.

Thanks in advance for your help

Hello AlexLabrada, and thank you for mapping!

I noticed that in your changeset changeset/181211589 and
changeset/181206649 and few others in Cuba you made some ref tag changes. For example here along way/210642536 you have updated the ref from CC;6-N-1 to CN;6-123 and along way/336861379 you updated from CN;6-I-23 to CN;6-123. Can you please explain to me how you determined these ref tags? Do you have any relevant and current resources you would like to share so I can have a better understanding of these changes.
Thank you and I looking forward to hear from you.

Hello brunoconter and thank you for mapping!

I noticed that in your changeset changeset/180276477 you have upgraded multiple track highways to tertiaries. OSM policy states that tag highway=track is used for minor land-access roads that are mostly used for agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, and similar activities on open land (highway=track).

The highway=tertiary tag is used for roads connecting smaller settlements, and within large settlements for roads connecting local centres (highway=tertiary). Since these roads you upgraded are mainly used for agricultural purposes and do not appear to be connecting city centers and or settlements what do you think about changing them to tracks or even unclassified, as that class is for "minor public roads"? If you have any other resources or insight for the change in road class that supports all these being tertiary, please let me know and I would be happy to review.
Thanks, and looking forward to hear from you.

Olá, brunoconter, e obrigado por mapear!

Notei que, no seu conjunto de alterações changeset/180276477, você promoveu várias vias do tipo *track* (trilha/estrada rural) para a categoria *tertiary* (terciária). A política do OSM estabelece que a tag `highway=track` é utilizada para vias de acesso terrestre menores, usadas principalmente para agricultura, silvicultura, recreação ao ar livre e atividades similares em áreas abertas (highway=track).

Já a tag `highway=tertiary` é empregada para vias que conectam assentamentos menores e, dentro de grandes assentamentos, para vias que conectam centros locais (highway=tertiary). Visto que as vias que você promoveu são utilizadas majoritariamente para fins agrícolas e não parecem conectar centros urbanos ou assentamentos, o que você acha de reclassificá-las como *tracks* ou até mesmo como *unclassified* (não classificadas) — já que esta última categoria se destina a "vias públicas menores"? Caso você possua quaisquer outros recursos ou informações que justifiquem a alteração da classe dessas vias para *tertiary*, por favor, avise-me; terei prazer em analisá-los.
Obrigado, e aguardo seu retorno.

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I understand there may be concerns about the driving conditions of some of these roads. However, they do serve as access routes to multiple residential properties and therefore meet the criteria for highway=residential.
If you have specific local knowledge regarding the surface types and their current conditions, it would be most helpful to include that information by adding the appropriate surface and condition tags alongside highway=residential, as you suggested.

Hello Alvarado2510,
I noticed that several roads previously tagged as highway=residential were recently changed to highway=path, and I wanted to ask if you could share the reasoning behind this update. Is there ongoing construction or a restriction that currently prevents motor vehicle access, or was there another factor that led to reclassifying these roads as paths?
According to the OSM Wiki, highway=residential is typically used for roads that provide access to homes, allow general motor vehicle access, and form part of the local road network serving residential traffic (highway=residential). Since highway=path is generally reserved for non-motorized routes or ways not intended for regular vehicle use and the highway wiki states that "highway=* distinguishes roads by function and importance rather by their physical characteristic", I just wanted to confirm whether conditions on the ground support this change.
I’d appreciate any clarification you can provide. Thank you!

I had an additional thought regarding this. Since construction is currently on hold and there are broken trunk segments along Corredor Norte between way/1473718363 and way/1454813047, the road does not currently function as a high-performance, state strategic corridor. What would you think about temporarily downgrading those broken sections to highway=unclassified and tagging them as construction=trunk or highway:proposed=trunk to accurately reflect the current on-the-ground situation? This will help keep the map true to its current state and not confuse other OSM users that there is an issue with broken data in the area. Let me know what you think!

Thank you for sharing the additional context and insight regarding the resources being used. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your perspective.

Hello, joserrg12, I noticed that you have updated this area using “Mapbox Satellite” imagery. I reviewed the latest Mapbox Satellite imagery available, but I was unable to confirm the recent changes. Do you have any additional resources or local insight that could help me understand the updates?

Hi TausifJutt, In order to keep discussion in one thread, I have addressed your comment on changeset changeset/175078260.

Hi TausifJutt, In order to keep discussion in one thread, I have addressed your comment on changeset changeset/175078260.

Hello TausifJutt,
Thank you for reaching out. It looks like these short roads are escape ramps for emergency purposes. What do you think about changing them to highway=escape per this OSM wiki article? (highway=escape)

Hola AgusQui,
Gracias por contactarme sobre la etiqueta de construcción que añadí en este conjunto de cambios. Al revisar mis modificaciones, me di cuenta de que la fecha real de mi fuente debería haber sido el 21/03/2025 en lugar del 21/03/2024. ¿Sabes si la construcción ya está terminada? La imagen del 21 de marzo muestra que no hay pavimento en el extremo sur del Camino Rivadavia, donde se cruza con Roque Sáenz Peña. Gracias por tu ayuda.

Hi muralito,
Thank you for reaching out about this area. I will defer to local knowledge and change these ways back to pedestrian.