Hello OSM_RogerWilco.
Based on my interpretation of the imagery, I thought the painted separation would not be traverseable, and I removed that section.

Based on your message, I understand that the road is legally traverseable at the location. Changeset reverted according to your message.

Hi OSM_RogerWilco,

Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Partially reverted in changeset/185634299

Hello kre777,
Thank you for the clarification and for taking the time to explain the distinction. I understand your point. I seem to have applied the separate carriageway principle more broadly than intended.

Since there have been other edits at the location since this changeset, a revert would most probably introduce data conflicts, and complicate things. I believe a manual fix at this point would be the sensible solution anyway.

Thank you again for your message and kind feedback.

Partially reverted in changeset/185410193

Partially reverted in changeset/185404732

Partially reverted in changeset/185391680

Partially reverted in changeset/185387018

Hello RogerWilco,

Thank you for your question.

The digitization direction was changed as part of updating the lane information and aligning the road geometry with the available source data. There was no intention to alter the actual traffic direction or other road characteristics.

Changing the digitization direction did not affect existing data, but I understand that it might be deemed unnecessary. I can be more careful to preserve the original direction in future edits in the area, if you think it should stay that way.

Thanks again for your inquiry. Happy to align with your thoughts.

Partially reverted in changeset/185385479

Partially Reverted in changeset/185336110

Hello Udarian,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention and for sharing the screenshot. The geometry update was based on the available source data at the time of editing. I understand that the latest imagery shows a slight curve on way/1444622491.
However, in my opinion, the curve is very slight and may not necessarily require additional nodes for greater detail. If you think that the geometry should be adjusted to better reflect the road or to improve routing, I will be happy to update it accordingly.

Thank you for taking the time to point this out and for providing supporting evidence. Your feedback is much appreciated.

Partially reverted in changeset id: changeset/184852131

Partially reverted in changeset id: changeset/184850713

Partially Revert of 184800419

Hello adamos,

Thank you for making the corrections and for bringing this to my attention. In this case, I overlooked the impact of the edited geometries on the bus line relations, and I appreciate you taking the time to correct it.

I will make sure to check for affected route relations more carefully before making similar edits in the future.

Hello benshapiro,
Thanks for taking the time to review my changes and for leaving your feedback.
The edit was based on the imagery that was available to me at the time and how I interpreted the road layout. I noticed a number of bollards around 37.79881, -122.40801, so I assumed the road was divided and mapped it as separate one-way carriageways.
Changeset reverted in changeset/184568381 based on your feedback and local knowledge. I'll keep this example in mind going forward and won't treat similar features as evidence of a divided roadway unless there's much clearer confirmation for physical separation.
Thanks again for the review and for helping improve the map. I highly appreciate your feedback.

Hello kre777,
thank you for your detailed feedback and inquiry.

The intention behind this change was to follow the OSM guideline of mapping roads as separate carriageways when a physical median is present. However, I see your point about how the current alignment introduced sharp bends and affects traffic signal alignments. That was certainly not the goal of my edits.

I will review the geometry again to follow the central axes of the roads and properly realign the traffic signals and the island. If you still feel it would be better to revert it and handle the dual carriageway differently, please let me know. I appreciate your help and your input on this.

Hello rskedgell,
thank you for taking a closer look and your kind remarks.

The bus lane is visible on Bing Streetside imagery from 2019. But unfortunately I don’t have any more recent resources available to me at the location other than the map feedback I have received and I cannot verify the if there are any time restrictions. So I would agree that a conservative assumption makes sense here.

Thank you again for your message. I appreciate the clarification and the effort put into resolving this situation.

Hello felipeeugenio,

Thank you for your understanding and for taking the time to discuss this further.

I understand your point on the turn lane topic and understood your concern on over-segmentation.

Also thank you for consulting with other mappers and for following up with the results. I appreciate the clarification regarding the allowed movements. I agree with your observations. Thank you for taking the time to review the situation and take the discussion to the local community. I highly appreciate the additional context and your local knowledge.

Happy mapping!