Hi BrackoNe,
Our team is currently on a break for the holidays in the U.S., but I want to assure you that we will follow up and prioritize reviewing and responding to your message, as well as updating the modeling of these intersections based on your feedback when we return after January 1st. Your patience is much appreciated, and I wish you a happy upcoming New Year!

Hello Branko Kokanovic, thank you for reaching out. BerbiceRiver is no longer on our team, so I’m responding on their behalf.

I believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding what occurred in this changeset. No street names were newly added or altered by BerbiceRiver. The now-deleted way (way/339232839) was originally created in 2015 by the user acamaxitaxi as a residential road with the tag name=Mazin Blok. Additional name tagging was later added by the user Christophorus, and in 2023 the way was reclassified from residential to service by eclipse28.

In this changeset, BerbiceRiver extended the existing service way, then split it and reclassified part of it as a footway, removing the name tag from that portion. This resulted in the newer history remaining on the service way and the older history being associated with the footway. After reconsidering the verifiability of the footway, it was removed entirely, which caused its history to no longer be visible, but it can still be viewed by undeleting the way.

I understand that preserving feature history is an important practice in OSM, and that editing in this manner can create confusion for future contributors. My sincere apologies for this oversight. Our team is aware of the community’s preference not to update street names in Serbia, and we will continue to respect and follow this guidance in future edits.

I hope this clarifies what occurred, but I’m happy to provide additional context if anything remains unclear.

Hope you have a nice day!

Thanks you for your insight, muralito! Would you like me to add the no_left_turn with the tertiary segment as the via member (way/341551036)?

Thank you for the valued input!

Hello Frans S, Adakaleh is no longer on our team so I will be handling this on their behalf. Investigating the area, I agree that some of these would be better modeled as service road features. For example: (way/953338634, and way/953330490). I can update the unclassified roads in this area. Thank you and have a nice day.

Hello, I saw that you commented on my colleague jula_june’s changeset. They are no longer active so I will be handling this on their behalf. It looks like this highway section was split into a dual carriageway due to the painted barrier which can be seen in Esri World Imagery (Clarity). The painted barrier can be seen in Mapillary as well (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=7.073766616944383&lng=-1.7142700216667208&z=15.669190280404258&pKey=796666707648313&focus=photo). I do think that this highway stretch would be better modeled as a bidirectional highway. The OSM Wiki page for dual carriageways (osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway) makes it clear that separation by paint is not a valid reason to create a dual carriageway. If you agree with that change, I can go ahead and make the edit. Looking forward to hearing from you!

Hello, I saw that you commented on my colleague LakeVelence’s changeset. They are no longer active so I will be handling this on their behalf. The OSM wiki indicates that using access:hgv=* is outdated, with alternatives like hgv:conditional=* now preferred since this edit was made. You are welcome to update this old access=hgv tagging as you see fit. Thank you for your contributions and Happy Mapping!

Hello, I saw that you commented on my colleague LakeVelence’s changeset. They are no longer active so I will be handling this on their behalf. After reviewing the OSM wiki pages for this tagging, it appears the use of access:hgv=* is discouraged and alternatives like hgv:conditional=* are now recommended instead (hgv=*). Modifying these tags to match this preferred tagging format would have a positive impact on the OSM data. Thank you for your contributions and Happy Mapping!

Hello Mateusz Konieczny, DavisSquare is no longer on the team so I will be handling this on their behalf. DavisSquare split the trunk road to add the dual carriageway from node/1604523543 to node/491069470, then transferred the tags from the original way but did not add PFM:garmin_type tagging originally. It appears this tag was added by the user katpatuka (@katpatuka) in 2010. The tag was likely not removed as we do not have the resources to do so, but you are welcome to remove it if you have more information regarding this tagging.

Hello Mateusz Konieczny, AltaiMountains is no longer on the team so I will be handling this on their behalf. AltaiMountains only aligned this road but did not add the PFM:garmin_type tagging. It appears this tag was added by the user katpatuka (@katpatuka) in 2010. The tag was likely not removed as we do not have the resources to do so, but you are welcome to remove it if you have more information regarding this tagging.

Hello Mateusz Konieczny, MonteGenerosa is no longer on the team so I will be handling this on their behalf. MonteGenerosa only aligned this road but did not add the PFM:garmin_type tagging. It appears this tag was added by the user katpatuka (@katpatuka) in 2010. The tag was likely not removed as we do not have the resources to do so, but you are welcome to remove it if you have more information regarding this tagging.

Hello Mateusz Konieczny, Eixample is no longer on the team so I will be handling this on their behalf. Eixample only added a bridge and transferred the tags from the parent way but did not add the PFM:garmin_type tagging originally. It appears this tag was added by the user katpatuka (@katpatuka) in 2010. The tag was was likely not removed as we do not have the resources to do so, but you are welcome to remove it if you have more information regarding this tagging.

Hello CurlingMan13, This user is no longer on the team, so I will be handling this on their behalf. The changeset that you commented on changeset/95591027 was for alignment updates in Goiás, Brazil. There were not any updates to the speed limit in FivePoints55 changeset. It appears that you were referring to this changeset (changeset/141694100) from the editor nloginov (@nloginov) in Ventura County, California. Was there something specific in FivePoints55’s changeset that you were referring to? Have a nice day.

Hello os-emmer, GrootLebataRiver is no longer on the team so I will be handling this on their behalf. GrootLetabaRiver was the last editor to work on these ways but did not add the ford tag to this way. I do agree that this is a typo and can be fixed, if you are available please feel free to make this update. It looks like the editor JLOSM (@JLOSM) was the editor to add this tag on this changeset (changeset/121833901#map=12/6.5084/-75.7468). Have a nice day and happy mapping!

Thank you for the input.

Hello AkuAnakTimur,
This edit was made based upon how I’ve seen other similar areas modeled in Malaysia. Are there more specific service road policies I should be following for this area?

Thank you for the message and for making the change. I didn’t adjust the classification of the road, that was jptolosa87 (changeset/60744499). I adjusted the alignment slightly.

Thank You.

Thanks.

Thanks for the information.