Hi maning, Thank you for letting me know about this and fixing this false connection. I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for these scenarios in the future and I’ve also connected the adjacent footway with the residential road to the North.

Hi maning, Thank you for catching this and reaching out. I now see the Mapillary images here that show the multiple parking entrances, and I agree that highway=service would be best here. Regarding the use of driveway, the OSM Wiki (service=driveway) says to not use service=driveway in or around a parking lot, and to use highway=service without service=* on the entrance and exit ways. Because of this, I think it’d be best to not use driveway tags here and instead use amenity=parking_entrance nodes for these parking entrances and exits.

However, is there a local convention about the service=driveway issue on the Philippines wiki that is different from the global OSM policy? I see on the mapping conventions page (osm.wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads) it just says to use highway=service for "Private driveways, parking area roads, alleys, minor irrigation roads, and other access roads, usually unnamed."

Otherwise, if you agree, I would be happy to update this area to include the additional parking entrances and exits.

Thanks again for bringing this to my attention and for uploading the Mapillary here!

Hello Joseph E,
I have reviewed the information on the Indonesian tagging guidelines page several times. However, I see some new valuable information here in your message that could help new editors better understand the finer aspects of classification in Papua. Specifically, under the trunk section of osm.wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Roads, where it only mentions Trans-Sumatra and Trans-Sulawesi, it could include the Trans-Papua? Possibly a note under "Primary Road” that in Papua this will almost always be paved and the lane width for paved roads within towns will be secondary & tertiary and unpaved outside of towns. In my opinion, this would be very valuable context and a worthy addition. If you think so as well, I can add those details to the Indonesia tagging wiki page or would you prefer to do that since you have the local knowledge in this area? Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback, I’ve responded in more detail on changeset/86780483

Hello again Joseph E.
I see your point on these roads that these roads should not be unclassified. I had looked at more urban areas in Java to learn how some roads should be classified but now see that those uses should not be applied to Papua. Thank you for your local perspective and your adjustments to the classification of roads in Wamena.
Regards,
MonteGeneroso

Thanks for the feedback, I’ve responded in more detail on changeset/86720638

Hello Joseph E.
Thank you for sharing your local perspective on classifications in Papua. On a high level overview of the entire area, I saw that there were some inconsistencies such as a secondary changing to a primary from the west of Wamena [way/553261422]. I was also trying to make a stronger main east-west primary route of the Trans Papua by downgrading the primary leading south down to Wamena to secondary.

I did not see anything directly referring to the Trans Papua classification in the osm.wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines but I take your point on it needing to be primary. It’s just a little inconsistent in Papua with name tagging such as way/706703056 to way/583874693. Do you think that section should be downgraded to secondary since it doesn’t have any name tagging indicating it participates in the Trans Papua route?

Your help in understanding this issue and the others you commented on is much appreciated.
Regards,
MonteGeneroso.