Hello Mateen Bhatti,

I have a few questions regarding made to the intersection at way/1447715386 .

I see some overpass and tunnels added here including way/1447715386 , way/1447715387 and way/1447715388. I noticed that there is some construction planned to potentially start here in this month, but no start date is stated. You can see an article that mentions the construction here: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2574522/remodelling-of-kacheri-chowk-to-begin-in-nov.

I have access to private satellite imagery through Vantor that shows construction is in early stages as of 11-17-2025. Do you have any resources that verify the construction is complete and the road is open to traffic? If not, would you be opposed to changing these features to construction until the project has been completed?

Happy mapping, Lauxsin

Hi CENTSOARER, thanks for reaching out!

Due to the size of certain large features such as cable lines and admin features, the boundary box of this reversion spans a much greater length than the majority of the edits made in the reverted changesets in San Luis Potosí. There were quite a few issues created in the data in these changesets which I can provide a few examples of.

The changesets included the removal of existing administrative boundaries (Ex: changeset/163078254 and way/376223042). I also noticed that some existing features, such as administrative boundaries, were repurposed into highways (Ex: way/1363961568 and way/1086536092). This practice can lead to the loss of valuable history that are tied to those features (osm.wiki/Keep_the_history). Another issue the changesets introduced were many overlapping or duplicate ways, which can create issues with data validation and routing (Ex: way/1086537971 and way/1086537529). There were also other features types such as railways and cables that were modified inaccurately (Ex: way/1211031679 and way/1145445516).

It might help to visualize the data issues if you run an attic query or take a look at the OSMCha changesets and zoom into the areas where the bulk of the edits were made. I hope that explains the reasoning behind these reversions a bit better, but please reach out if you would like anything clarified better.

Have a nice day!

Howdy there,

SergiNavas16 is no longer on the team, so I will be responding on their behalf.

This looks to indeed be a typo for the tag you pointed out, I can go ahead and make a fix for the accurate tagging,
“ amenity=events_venue “ .

Thanks for reaching out and happy mapping!

While the text from the sign isn’t very legible, there are vehicles visible in SDFE Imagery on the other side of the tunnel. It makes sense that they would be traveling through the tunnel and parking rather than driving around it on another roadway. However, I do see your point about the possibility of private access tagging here considering the sign itself and if you think it’d be a more accurate fit for these features, I’d have no problem with you updating the features.

Hello, thank you for pointing this out and making the updated fix. Happy Mapping!

Howdy and thanks for reaching out! A Maps user requested an update to the access restrictions involving these roadways. The source used for these edits is Mapillary Imgery: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.71856&lng=9.631804&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=394544875046449

Thank you!

The edits within this changeset were originally aligned using SDFE imagery and not Maxar imagery.