Hello caprieldeluca, My apologies for the oversight in not adding the name to way/162154206 after updating it to base classification.

My reasoning for using the base highway classification is that this roadway appears to function as a branch of the main road rather than a separate connecting road based on the wiki which states that *_link roads are "not the main line of either of the highways being linked but form the connection between them,” (osm.wiki/Highway_link). Although it serves a dedicated turning movement, it splits directly from the parent road and there is no channelized physical separation between node/4571981580 and node/1740891290.

I've also noticed similar nearby junctions, such as way/1373574968, that are mapped using the base highway classification. Because of this, it seems these types of junctions can be somewhat subjective and are not always mapped consistently in Argentina. Is there an Argentina-specific guideline or community consensus that expands on this interpretation? I'd appreciate any documentation you can share so I can better align my edits with local mapping practices in the future.

That said, I'm happy to restore the way to its previous link classification if that is the established local convention. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, and I appreciate your patience.

Proposed Response : Hello caprieldeluca,

Thank you for clarifying, I now understand that you are stating that links should not have names, and in making them base classification, the roads are now left unnamed which is something I should have considered.

My reasoning for updating way/1046059581 and way/385934734 to base classification was that I interpreted them as branches where the main road splits, rather than designated turning lanes based on the wiki stating links are “not the main line of either of the highways being linked but forms the connection between them” (osm.wiki/Highway_link).

After taking another look at the junction, I can better understand the reasoning for keeping them as link roads. Although they branch from the main road, they function as dedicated, channelized turning roadways connecting the through carriageway to another road. I will restore them to their previous state.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, and appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. I hope you have a great day!

Hi caprieldeluca, Thanks for reaching out. The changes I made in this changeset were to reclassify [way/162154220] and [way/162154206]. The only validation warning present is on [way/162154206] that I believe is referring to [node/13936668687] which is part of the same route relation as the way I reclassified - [relation/3666626] - and seems to be missing a role value. However this node was not part of my edits and as I have no information on the bus stops of this route, I’m not able to confirm if this node should be included in the route or not.Hi caprieldeluca, Thanks for reaching out. The changes I made in this changeset were to reclassify [way/162154220] and [way/162154206]. The only validation warning present is on [way/162154206] that I believe is referring to [node/13936668687] which is part of the same route relation as the way I reclassified - [relation/3666626] - and seems to be missing a role value. However this node was not part of my edits and as I have no information on the bus stops of this route, I’m not able to confirm if this node should be included in the route or not.

Hello caprieldeluca, The only changes I made in this changeset were reclassifying [way/1046059581] and [way/385934734] from tertiary links to tertiary ways. I made these changes based on their history but if you have a suggestion for a better classification please let me know. As for the validation warnings, I assume you are referring to the unnamed ways warning. Both ways were previously named but those tags were removed by another editor in the changeset prior to mine - [changeset/184371169]. Due to the modeling of this intersection it’s difficult to determine which street name is better for these sections without local knowledge. So in this case I didn’t want to make further changes since the names were removed by someone who seems to have more knowledge of this area.

Thank you, I truly appreciate hearing that! Happy Mapping!

Hello Novelgomez,

I reclassified way/1241478625 to path since residential and paths are normally for neighborhood roads, which is what these roads appear to be. Based on policy regarding secondaries (highway=secondary), secondary highways are usually used to tag arterial roads that are of lesser relative importance than primary roads, and this section does not appear to be open as an arterial road currently. Upon full official opening, then it would seem to match that classification guideline. I hope that helps to explain what I did here. Have a good day.

Hola Novelgomez,

Reclasiifiqué way/1241478625 como camino, ya que las vías residenciales y los caminos normalmente corresponden a vías vecinales, que es lo que parecen ser estas vías. Según la política sobre vías secundarias (highway=secondary), las vías secundarias suelen usarse para identificar vías arteriales de menor importancia relativa que las vías primarias, y esta sección no parece estar abierta como vía arterial actualmente. Tras su apertura oficial completa, parecería cumplir con esa directriz de clasificación. Espero que esto ayude a explicar mi decisión. Que tenga un buen día.

Thank you for the heads up.