Thank you for notifying me and correcting the direction.

Apologies for the mistake. The road appeared to be bidirectional in this Mapillary link https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=273818454444635. I have reverted my edit back to oneway. Thanks for the feedback.

Hi 4004, thanks for the feedback. I removed the redundant foot tag from the ways.

Hi Rico557,

According to OSM wiki, ways without an explicit value are assumed to have layer 0. However, it appears that the footway travels underneath the railway and already had a "tunnel" tag, which is why I changed it to -1. I realize this has changed back and forth, so I will leave the final decision to your discretion.

layer=*

Thank you for pointing that out and correcting it.

Thank for the helpful feedback.

Thank you for the correction.

Hello, thank you for reaching out. Although I have not edited in Moldova for over a year, I have been made aware of this information and will be sure to discuss any future editing with the Moldovan OSM community. I appreciate your valuable input and willingness to help.

Thank you for the information.

Hi Veska. I noticed that you changed a large section on the М5 to trunk, but it looks like there were some gaps leftover (way/280309383, way/749717229, way/599380183 for example). I was wondering if this was intentional or if they should match their neighboring classification?

Hi PelleV. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I appreciate your feedback.

Hi 4004, thank you for the message. I changed the ways back to secondary.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have reverted my edit.

Hi skquinn. There doesn’t appear to be any signage confirming the name, so I will remove the tag as advised. Thanks!

Sounds like a plan! I can make the change. Thanks!

Yes that makes sense to me. Perhaps we can add ref=180 to way/342934220, and then remove 180 from both ref:forward and ref:backward (deleting ref:forward tag completely). Thoughts?

Hi mikkolukas,

What do you think about re-adding ref=180;O1 to way/342934220? This way users will understand which ref networks the road belongs to, as well as the intended direction of travel for each ref. Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
berms

Hi Hjart,

Thanks for also looking at this changeset. Both SDFE and Mapillary confirm this is a dual carriageway, so you are correct that they should have oneway tags.

I was going to come back to this area and add the oneway tags to (way/678728609), (way/657421860), (way/657421859), (way/657421858), but I just haven’t had a chance to yet. I will add them now.

Hjart,

Thanks for the insight. This makes sense.

Hi Hjart,

Thanks for the recommendation on the changeset comments.

I think we could simplify this junction while still maintaining functionality. What if I edit the members/roles in relation/9292138 (relation/9292138) as such: from (way/117459151), via (way/496188128), to (way/668141663). This would allow us to remove relation/9291740 (relation/9291740) and way/668141664 (way/668141664).

I also propose we remove relation/9292142 (relation/9292142), because according to Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.374774&lng=10.36890500000004&z=17&pKey=iRV92h0yVvqkQkcisvROFA&focus=photo, left turns appear to be legal. What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

Berms