@CAM-Gerlach_repair

> Could you help us understand where you are seeing this, @carciofo ? As the local mapper @txemt mentioned above, he personally surveyed [...]

Because I'm also a "local mapper" and that was my recollection (hence "afair" in my comment above).

@txemt thanks for sharing the photos.

As I said, the road surface is not interrupted and there is no curb, at least not in the traditional sense. I don't think that this type of barrier fits the criteria in the dual carriageway wiki to justify a separate way to represent lanes, but I see where that definition might be insufficient in cases like these and for barrier of this type. I'm pretty sure, though I haven't tested it, that this can be represented accurately with a turn restriction without separate ways. Provided that is the case, the prevailing argument for me is and was when making the edit one of reducing unnecessary complexity in the map, which leads to brittleness (i.e. it is more prone to break with subsequent edits).

@txmemt you stated that "how you had it set up is the only way that works". Did you model this with a turn restriction, and if so why didn't that work?

@txemt glad to see you come a long way in 4 years :) changeset/101946040

@pwbriggs I'd like to have a look at this myself. I would like to validate that this is not achievable with a turn restriction relation with multiple ways with a 'via' role. The physical separation in question is not one with a curb and the surface of the road is not physically separated afair. Happy to be proven wrong, however.

@CAM-Gerlach_Repair while I agree with your points, I'll forego starting a meta discussion until the core issue is resolved.

That is correct @CAM-Gerlach-Repair, I reverted the change from tiger:county to addr:county. The latter is plainly incorrect as roads are used to describe addresses, so they themselves cannot have an address (in the US & Europe). Ways with addr:* tags are flagged as data quality issues.

@txemt if you want to remove tiger tags, then do so without adding addr:* tags.

Thanks for the extra context. FYI: I'm currently traveling so I can't look at this with proper tooling. I'll be happy to have a look next week.

*you're referring to

Hi txemt, can you be more specific as to the specific intersection your referring to? In general, lanes are not mapped as separate ways unless there is a physical barrier (this is well documented in the wiki). Are the lanes you're referring to physically separated? If not, mappers (like me) consider that an error and they will be removed sooner or later. You mention incorrect navigation instructions: turn restrictions are handled via relations or the change:lanes tag. It _sounds like_ you could be optimizing for a particular routing engine or app, which is the wrong way around. Again, without more specific information it's hard to be concrete. Let me know and I'll have a look again at the change history. Cheers.

Hi, thanks again for the heads-up. I've fixed the tagging in changeset #186138596.

Thanks for the heads-up! It was an oversight on my part. I've fixed the tags in changeset #186138345. Cheers.

Hi, Bing is quite outdated in this area. Esri is better and Palm Beach County has its own aerial photography every year. I've updated the lanes to the latest imagery (2026). Thanks.

Fixed in changeset/134715006

Hi, just curious as to the source for applying the ref=40 to the segment between Buga and La Paila in this changeset? This segment actually is defined as National Hwy 25. Hwy 40 is discontinuous here.

Hola, en este changeset fue borrada la relación del Parque Nacional Natural Isla Salamanca. Si fue un error por favor restaura los datos borrados (relation/6210917). Gracias

Hi, just wondering if there was any reason to add the addr:city to streets in Plantation and remove the state from the county in the TIGER tags? The former gets reported as an error in OSM Inspector. Would like to understand the reason before reverting. Thanks!

Hi and welcome to OSM. Might I ask why you deleted all the taxiway reference values and their source tags in this changeset? Thanks.

Hi, could you kindly provide a source for the changes to the administrative boundaries here? Would appreciate you adding meaningful comments to your changesets. Many thanks in advance.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114116304

Thanks for the quick response. Looks like I selected the wrong changeset when adding my comment. Sorry for the confusion.

Hi, and thanks for improving the map. I've noticed you editing the ref tag for national highways in Colombia and wanted to ask for the source for these changes. Specifically, in the segment of RN-50 east of Honda, you are using ref=45;50. Are there observations on the ground that support such a tag? To my knowledge and the information published by the National Transportation Ministry of Colombia this segment belongs exclusively to RN-50. Thanks in advance for clearing this up.

Hi, and thanks for improving the map. I've noticed you editing the ref tag for national highways in Colombia and wanted to ask for the source for these changes. Specifically, in the segment of RN-50 east of Honda, you are using ref=45;50. Are there observations on the ground that support such a tag? To my knowledge and the information published by the National Transportation Ministry of Colombia this segment belongs exclusively to RN-50. Thanks in advance for clearing this up.