Hi Ale_Zena_IT,
Thank you for your feedback.
I have reviewed the changeset and updated the features that were unnecessarily reverted in changeset/178294301. I also noticed that a few items had already been fixed by other mappers. In addition, I updated the highway classification where the continuity had been unintentionally broken.

I will be more aware in deleting valid information while addressing data quality issues. Thank you for the reminder.

Hi bjam55,
Thank you for checking and for the helpful clarification.
I reviewed the relation again and noticed a small discontinuity that was creating a gap in the route continuity. Instead of only patching a segment, I restored the complete relation and then corrected the missing connection so the route is continuous now.
Your explanation about Scenic Byways being subsets of larger routes makes sense. After reviewing further, it’s clear that the relation with fewer members represents only the scenic segment starting from Highway 92, while the broader US:CA route continues further north. So both relations serve different purposes rather than being true duplicates.

I’ve therefore focused only on fixing the continuity issue while keeping the scenic relation intact. Please feel free to review, and if you notice anything else that could be improved, I’m happy to collaborate further.

Thank you again for the constructive discussion and for contributing to improving the map.

Hi bjam55,
Thank you for your feedback.
While reviewing the route relation, I noticed there was a gap in the sequence of members, which was breaking the continuity of the route. I also saw that two relations — 20151235 and 1976278 — appeared to represent the same route but were tagged with different networks (US:CA and US:CA:Scenic). This resulted in a duplicate relation situation and some confusion in the route structure.

To avoid duplication and keep the route continuous, I removed the relation that had the gap and fewer members, and kept the more complete one. The intention was only to improve consistency and data quality, not to remove any valid information.

If you think US:CA:Scenic should not be deleted, but fixed, I can either revert my edits and fix continuity, or update the remaining route relation to reflect the scenic route as well.

Thank you for reaching out and for keeping the map accurate.

Hi bjam55, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi Footsteps of Ancestors, thank you very much for acknowledging this. I’m glad to expand my knowledge and understanding and always happy to improve the map for all.

Thank you Syl for your valuable feedback. I have made the corrections by removing the superflous geometry as per your suggestions. I will be more cautious while performing the edits going further.