Hey Kovoschiz, after taking a second look I agree that we should preserve pedestrian routing here. Thank you for reaching out to me and making the edit!
TrueWeast

Hej osmviborg. Jeg set at du har opdateret færgeterminalet i Aarhus Bugt. Jeg har lavet små opdater at en nær vej, og har spørgasmål hvis der er mere ændrer i nærheden.
Tak, Trueweast

Hello osmviborg, I noticed you updated the data for the ferry terminal in Aarhus Bugt. I made a small update to the highway modeling near the ferry terminals, and I am curious if there are any further updates to this area.
Thanks, TrueWeast

¡Hola Challenger1007! Me di cuenta que agregó un nodo de ‘amenity=place_of_worship’ aquí (node/7015837696) y aceras con las palabras “Ave Maria Auxiliadora” cerca de ellas. El OSM Wiki para “highway=footway” (highway=footway) dice que esta etiqueta es usada para vías menores que son utilizadas mayormente o exclusivamente por peatones. Por lo que puedo entender, estas letras no parecen ser en aceras, y espero encontrar una etiqueta mejor para describirlas - quizás, algo que describe el material del que están hechas. Tiene usted algo tipo de conocimiento local sobre este sitio? Parece que man_made=geoglyph seria una etiqueta apropiada. ¿Cual es su opinión acerca de esto?

Thank you for your response, I have made the edits. changeset/103719428

Hey angys,

I noticed here that you reclassified this primary to tertiary (way/750641368), and I am curious what you might know about the highways in this area. It seems as if the current primary is built to handle more traffic, but based on aerial imagery at this eastern intersection (osm.org/#map=20/2.3105665561010587/102.4274341022943), it appears westbound traffic must use this tertiary. Also, the `ref=M2` follows the primary east and west until it meets this tertiary. Do you know why the `ref=M2` tag exists along the tertiary and not on the primary highway immediately north of it? Is it possible both highways are part of the M2, and both highways should be considered primary?

Looking forward to hearing from you,

TrueWeast

Hello,

I noticed you were changing the “ref” value of the М-7 near Шелокша. Did you consider the “loc_ref” or “reg_ref” tags for these additions to the map? Using these tags will provide additional detail, without removing the “ref=М-7,” which appears to be valid based on this wiki page (osm.wiki/RU:Россия/Автодороги#Автомобильные_дороги_общего_пользования_федерального_значения). Another option would be to separate these refs by semicolon (;), such as “ref=М-7;22К-0098.” These methods allow both refs to be accounted for on the same way.

For more information about ref tags and their usage, please see ref=*

Let me know if you have any questions,
TrueWeast

Hey tutaaa,

I noticed that you reclassified the A-121 recently. Do you know if there are motorway begins/ends signs at the entrance and exits of the A-121 now? Based on osm.wiki/RU:Key:highway, motorways require such signage on the ground, and all the recent ground-level imagery I have found does not confirm a motorway begins/ends at these locations (osm.org/#map=16/60.0890/30.3758) , (osm.org/#map=16/60.6730/30.0140). Such an edit typically requires some form of ground-level truth and given that you only cited Maxar for this edit, I would like to ask what ground-level confirmation did you use?
Kindest regards,

TrueWeast

This is an interesting interpretation of how highway classifications are utilized at junctions. This scheme would be unique to Hong Kong as I haven't seen this in other countries. If this is the desire of the Hong Kong community to visualize junctions this way, it would benefit the community to discuss on discord then document on the OSM Wiki.

Thanks,
TrueWeast

Hey Kovoschiz, I classified these ways as primary to keep a consistent classification through the intersection. Based on global trends, this is the most common practice. I understand your logic, but I did not see anything related to this modeling policy on the Hong Kong Roads wiki (osm.wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road). Is there any documentation I am missing?

Thanks,

TrueWeast

Hey Kovoschiz,

Thanks for the review and feedback!
TrueWeast

Hey, Free gems 8. Thanks for reaching out! I reclassified this way to tertiary because it is not a dedicated turn lane, in the sense that it is not a slip road, and this segment of the road is bidirectional. Considering this road has multiple purposes, based on https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.311329855066546&lng=114.22882374298479&z=16.689897602018068&pKey=qj06K5xkgyyKt2CIhcdd-Q&focus=photo&x=0.5224199883903404&y=0.7115792581082339&zoom=0.8741080544211648, I decided to change way/156933445 to tertiary. This allows the remaining, oneway trunk_link to represent the turn from the trunk to the tertiary.
This is the policy I was following to make this change: osm.wiki/Highway_link
Let me know if you have any further questions or comments.

TrueWeast

Hello, Владимир! Thanks for reaching out. My edits here were primarily addressing validation warnings. In this location, there were multiple highways which were not connected to the greater network, and this was one of them. Based on its condition compared to the nearby residential highways, I must have mistaken it for a long driveway and accidentally deleted it. I have added the way back.

Correct imagery citation for this changeset is Bing Aerial Imagery

Hey Hjart, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I agree “highway=footway” is a more proper classification for this scenario, considering that these roads are not intended for mix use. It is worth noting that other areas such as [way/477603652 way/477603651 way/477603650 way/477603649] are tagged as pedestrian ways. I was mapping based on what was visible within the vicinity. Have a great day!

Hey Hjart, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I see why “highway=footway” is more appropriate, since these footpaths are not intended for mixed use. I’ll be sure not to use that tag in similar contexts in the future. Have a great day!

Hi Hjart,

I chose to classify these roads as residential because I wanted to maintain consistent classifications throughout the vicinity of this changeset. After observing the classification of highways in the nearby "landuse=industrial” area (way/46248954), I concluded that a residential classification would match best in this local area. Perhaps these roads are better represented as “highway=unclassified" based on its definition found in osm.wiki/Highway:International_equivalence under Denmark, which states "Local roads in rural areas, streets in industrial areas and the like without habitation (streets with habitation are labeled as highway=residential). Minor roads”.

Thank you for reaching out,
TrueWeast

Hello kMeeT,
Thanks for the link. It appears that page has not been updated since 2013, and from what I can tell, that information is based on a decree from 2012, which I understand was invalidated in 2015. The newest decree that I’ve seen does not include some of the refs which you added recently. I believe the “old_ref” tag would be more appropriate for these refs, according to the key:ref OSM wiki (ref=*).

TrueWeast

Hello kMeeT, thank you for mapping.

I noticed the ref T-26-24 and T-26-21(changeset/82661701) that you added are not listed on this resource https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/55-2019-%D0%BF. Is there an updated resource you are referencing?

TrueWeast

Proper imagery citation for this changeset is Maxar Premium Imagery.

The proper imagery citation for this changeset is Maxar Premium Imagery.