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.

Correct citation for this changeset was Maxar Imagery

Thanks for the information! Do you know where that is documented on the OSM Wiki?

Hey literan, after I added the oneway tag to way/759561433 citing Mapillary - (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.68021421925255&lng=37.73871286667895&z=17&pKey=w6IxmOgQQx9zXOaUMnTNez&focus=photo&x=0.5048957511044654&y=0.6599067828381363&zoom=1.494326799275489) I noticed a sign below the red ‘no entry’ sign though it was illegible. After checking Yandex Panorama - (https://yandex.com/maps/213/moscow/?l=stv%2Csta&ll=37.737448%2C55.680117&panorama%5Bdirection%5D=280.460139%2C0.271647&panorama%5Bfull%5D=true&panorama%5Bpoint%5D=37.738244%2C55.680154&panorama%5Bspan%5D=60.397588%2C34.451677&z=18) I noticed the one way begins 70m after the intersection so I removed the oneway tag that I added. Thank you for reaching out to me.

Hi saintam1,

Thanks for reaching out! I like your idea of implementing ‘use_sidepath’ in these scenarios. I will go ahead and add ‘use_sidepath’ to way way/675043589 and way way/88335371. Thanks for the feedback and happy mapping!

TrueWeast

Thanks for the information!

Hello, Володимир Новіцький,
I noticed that a "motor_vehicle=no" tag remains on this bridge after your fixme tag was removed by another user here - changeset/78655253. Are you able to confirm whether the construction on this bridge is complete at this time? Thank you!

Ok thanks for the info!

Hey Osmviborg,
Just curious: is the Mapillary image from Dec. 30, 2019 (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2h7g-t_j-FUeLRcP3w428Q) showing road construction along Nygade (way/84079172 ) already out of date? Thanks!

Hi dval,

I have fixed the validator issues. Thank you for pointing them out.

Hello dval,

I made edits to this junction based on Digital Globe imagery from 08/30/2019. I noticed there were extra segments at this junction that should be modeled as lane tags per OSM policy here lanes=* and here: osm.wiki/Lanes. I also just noticed a oneway issue that I will take care of. Thanks!