Thank you!

Thank you for your response empty_child.

From the resource you included, it appears int_ref E 692 should follow the east-west motorway along way/763458571 and be removed from the secondary highway along way/120171983, is this correct?

Hello there,

Can we confirm if int_ref E 692 follows the new motorways along way/1121452998 and way/763458571?

Your help and local knowledge would be greatly appreciated to update the ref tagging and ref relation correctly, thank you!

Thanks GOwin! I agree, using construction=minor with a conditional tag would be a good alternative if this road is passable. Is there any chance you or caspermonte are able to confirm the status or scope of this construction? I don’t see any signs of construction and I was hoping to verify the accuracy of the road connections here.

Hello caspermonte, thank you for your update on way/461797014.

Do you know when construction on this road will be complete? In addition, do you have knowledge if vehicles are able to access this road while under construction? If not, I propose we could add a more specific access tag such as access=no, as suggested on the OSM wiki: access=*.

I appreciate your insight here, happy mapping!

Hi beatnickgr, thanks for the comment!

The name tag was created by another mapper before I split the road at node/137249341.

I did not make changes to it considering no street signs are visible in available ground imagery: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=960435391386467

Hello jimkats, Vesterbro is no longer on our team but I can respond on their behalf.

I see that way/782437612 appears different than surrounding residential roads. Thank you for the update here and happy mapping!

Hi rab,

Thank you for letting me know about these locations. I agree these roads (or portions of them) should not have been created. I have now reviewed and updated each location to reflect the most recent aerial imagery.

Hello rab, thank you for your input.

I added this road since it is present in both Maxar and ESRI imageries, and appears to access residential buildings.

After further review, I do see how this road is less prominent than surrounding residential roads and I will consider the final future layout moving forward.

Hello Timmy_Tesseract. I agree, amenity=parking_entrance is a more specific tag for this scenario, thank you for this feedback!
Happy Mapping!

I agree that it can be tough. I often look at the created date for a feature with no history and run an attic query (osm.wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#date) to the day before the feature was created to see what the map looked like before the split. Hope that helps, and happy mapping!

Hi kucai, thanks for the message. If you are referring to route 89 and exit 9217, the names were both added by previous mappers: way/29477483/history and node/2215567608/history. I moved over the existing names when I adjusted the road geometry.

Hi Angys, thank you for reaching out and for your detailed work around Tiara Sendayan. I will keep that in mind. Happy mapping!

Hi DenKeo,

I noticed you updated a few classifications from service to path around Ipoh including, for example, way/787815097 (way/787815097). The OpenStreetMap Wiki (highway=*) suggests that highway=path is meant for pedestrian use but since cars are visible on this road in OpenStreetCam (https://openstreetcam.org/details/2248742/173/track-info from May 19, 2020) highway=service may be a better option, especially since it appears to be functioning as an alleyway between buildings. Is there a specific reason you used highway=path over highway=service?

I’m also curious about the highway link segments added around way/804792898 (way/804792898). I see you have added some extra highway links and turn restrictions to prevent u-turns and the residential road from crossing the primary. However, adding all of these extra segments in the data and turn restrictions can be tough to maintain since turn restrictions are easily broken when data moves around. Is there a reason you prefer this junction design? No u-turn restrictions are almost always modeled without these extra segments. An example of this is visible along the same road here: osm.org/#map=23/4.593153447802184/101.08469714077214

Thank you