Hello again,

I wanted to ask again about the foot=no tags added throughout highways in Córdoba. Looking at ground imagery such as (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.360122682471996&lng=-64.203941971083&z=17.735705270527706&pKey=808791350061405&focus=photo&x=0.5035676759354477&y=0.49297764012536593&zoom=0) on way/169431060, not only is a sidewalk visible but appears a bus stop is now restricted because of the foot=no tags. With the current tagging in place plenty of other destinations are now restricted from pedestrian access.

If you believe the foot tags should stay in place, how would you feel about adding footways alongside these highways?

Thanks again,

Dcskobuffs

Hola de nuevo,

Quería preguntar de nuevo sobre las etiquetas foot=no añadidas en las carreteras de Córdoba. Al observar imágenes terrestres como (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.360122682471996&lng=-64.203941971083&z=17.735705270527706&pKey=808791350061405&focus=photo&x=0.5035676759354477&y=0.49297764012536593&zoom=0) en way/169431060, no solo se ve una acera, sino que también parece que una parada de autobús está ahora restringida debido a las etiquetas foot=no. Con la señalización actual, muchos otros destinos tienen ahora restringido el acceso peatonal. Si crees que las señales peatonales deberían seguir en su lugar, ¿qué te parecería añadir aceras junto a estas carreteras?

Gracias de nuevo,

Dcskobuffs

Thanks for the discussion,

I went ahead and reclassified Antofagasta Ave. to trunk and added hgv=no in this changeset(changeset/178605215), as well as reclassifying the designated truck route to secondary and adding hgv=designated.

Happy Mapping!

Hola Pepe Sánchez de Wu,

Se han añadido considerablemente las etiquetas foot=no en las carreteras de Córdoba. Si bien las restricciones peatonales en la Avenida de Circunvalación Agustín Tosco coinciden con la política wiki de OSM, las restricciones peatonales en carreteras primarias y secundarias no lo hacen al observar imágenes de Esri World, así como imágenes terrestres de la zona (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.357662845389&lng=-64.203508794278&z=19.517574779158096&pKey=154140219928828&focus=photo), ya que se ven numerosos cruces peatonales y aceras.

La realidad del terreno muestra que estas zonas son transitables y, por lo tanto, foot=no restringiría el acceso peatonal y las rutas para ese modo de transporte. Teniendo esto en cuenta, me gustaría saber si tiene información adicional sobre cómo se están añadiendo estas etiquetas peatonales y si hay planes para digitalizar las aceras y las vías peatonales por separado. Si no planea añadir estas características, ¿qué criterios o referencias se utilizan para estas restricciones peatonales?

Gracias y espero su respuesta.

Dcskobuffs

—

Hello Pepe Sánchez de Wu,

There has been considerable additions for foot=no tags throughout highways in Córdoba. Although the foot restrictions on the motorway Avenida de Circunvalación Agustín Tosco match OSM wiki policy, the primary and secondary highway pedestrian restrictions do not when looking at Esri World Imagery as well as ground imagery through the area such as (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.357662845389&lng=-64.203508794278&z=19.517574779158096&pKey=154140219928828&focus=photo), as many crosswalks and sidewalks are visible.

The ground truth show these areas are walkable and thus foot=no would restrict pedestrian access and routing for that mode of travel. With that in mind, I’m curious if you have any additional context on how these foot tags are being added and if there are plans to digitize the sidewalks and footways separately. If you do not plan to add these features, by what criteria or references are being used for these pedestrian restrictions.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Dcskobuffs

Hello 5m4u9,

I noticed you reclassified roads in Villazón with the purpose of rerouting heavy traffic. Instead of classifications, how would you feel about using the tags hgv=no on Avenida Antofagasta (way/389636245) in order to retain the trunk classification where it was originally to serve the most general set of drivers? Additionally, a specific route for trucks could be accomplished by tagging all the necessary ways as hgv=designated to represent the alternative route for trucks. This designation route serving trucks would be more consistent with OSM road hierarchy policy set as a secondary road class in my opinion. Please let me know what you think of these suggestions.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you,
Dcskobuffs

Hello JSR1781,

I noticed some recent updates to destination tags on major highways in Lima that I wanted to get some insight on. For example, Mapillary imagery (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-12.030390199972018&lng=-76.99430419999999&z=17&pKey=223217486770362&focus=photo&x=0.45435725507933733&y=0.5071405201810766&zoom=2.154747427911534) shows a destination sign for “Chosica; Autopista Ramiro Prialé” pointed towards way/161901337, which Chosica was removed from. I’ve noticed several other recent edits where the destination values shown in Mapillary imagery match the destination values that were previously present in OSM before your updates. With that in mind, I’m curious if you have any additional context on how these destination tags are being updated, and what criteria or references are being used for these changes.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you,
Dcskobuffs

Traducción automática:
Hola JSR1781,

He notado algunas actualizaciones recientes en las etiquetas de destino de las principales autopistas de Lima y me gustaría obtener más información al respecto. Por ejemplo, las imágenes de Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-12.030390199972018&lng=-76.99430419999999&z=17&pKey=223217486770362&focus=photo&x=0.45435725507933733&y=0.5071405201810766&zoom=2.154747427911534) muestran una señal de destino para "Chosica; Autopista Ramiro Prialé" que apunta a way/161901337, de donde se eliminó Chosica. He observado varias otras ediciones recientes donde los valores de destino que se muestran en las imágenes de Mapillary coinciden con los valores de destino que estaban presentes anteriormente en OSM antes de sus actualizaciones. Teniendo esto en cuenta, me gustaría saber si tiene algún contexto adicional sobre cómo se están actualizando estas etiquetas de destino y qué criterios o referencias se están utilizando para estos cambios.

Gracias y espero su respuesta,
Dcskobuffs

Hello A67-A67,

These updates were made after having a discussion with The_ABM in this changeset(changeset/176965094). I inquired on why they were updating refs and we decided it would be good to simplify the whole ref system, as they have made previous updates to refs here and wanted to know why those changes were being made.
These edits made were proposed by us and they agreed. If other community members and policy here are stating otherwise, I am happy to keep the ref relations to how they were before.

Hello again,

Per our discussion, I have updated the relation for Route 1 (relation/16837420) in changesets (changeset/177737372,https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177733576) so the split lane dual carriageway sections retain their directional A;B and the format ref=1,ref:forward=1A and ref:backward=1B are on all the two-way sections across the route. Additionally, this ref relation is the only one representing this route now.

If you agree this is how all these refs should look across the island, I can update the rest of the ref relations to match the format of Route 1, and also unify the way ref tagging as mentioned previously.

Thanks again for your feedback and discussion,
Dcskobuffs

Hello again.

Thanks for explaining your practice in updating the ref tags on major roads. Simplifying the main ref tag on bidirectional ways to the number and having the ref:forward & ref:backward tags carry the route’s A & B directional value makes sense overall. One consideration is the ref relations on these bidirectional roads. Many have both the A and B such as (relation/16837061 3A) and (relation/16837060 3B) on the ways that have the ref=3 (way/25591440). Do you think it would also be advisable to update the relation to only one with the same format of ref=3 ref:forward=3A & ref:backward=3B?

And also I do think it would make sense for the split lane dual carriage roads to retain their directional A;B, like on the trunk highway Avenida Edgar J. (Watty) Vos - (way/633751428 / ref=8A & way/497258745 / ref=8B). Please let me know your thoughts on these points also if you know of any other community member that maps in Aruba that may disagree with this proposal.

Thank you. dcskobuffs

Hello The_ABM,

I see you simplified the refs to have a one digit number rather than having the format (#A;#B). I am curious if you know of any signage or other policy updates that would support this change, given this has been the ref format for many years as seen on Mapillary(https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=12.599703534943217&lng=-70.04988065385373&z=18.026916420357637&pKey=224124029484743&focus=photo&x=0.501039829477314&y=0.49413114216478465&zoom=0)? Additionally, the ref relations still are all one direction with letters at the end.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Hello FenyMufyd,

The alt_name tag here seemed very long and I felt the need to simplify it. I do understand your reasoning for having multiple names if this street has these different interpretations, and am happy to defer to your knowledge on the matter here.

Happy mapping!

Hello JP Duran,

I see you added oneways throughout Santa Cruz de la Sierra. While this Mapillary is not very recent (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-17.774354992389&lng=-63.158886451278&z=17&pKey=543807499949135&focus=photo), it does show way/442496835 is two way. Since Mapillary is overall limited, I am curious if you have any documented resources on oneway roads that you could share to help the community verify these directionality changes.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Hola JP Duran,

Veo que has añadido calles de sentido único en Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Si bien esta imagen de Mapillary no es muy reciente (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-17.774354992389&lng=-63.158886451278&z=17&pKey=543807499949135&focus=photo), muestra que la calle way/442496835 es de doble sentido. Dado que Mapillary tiene ciertas limitaciones, me gustaría saber si tienes alguna fuente de información documentada sobre las calles de sentido único que pudieras compartir para ayudar a la comunidad a verificar estos cambios de dirección.

Gracias y espero tu respuesta.

Thank you for the information you provided here and happy mapping!

Hello joserrg12,

I saw you made some ref updates in and around Nieuw-Amsterdam, such as replacing ’24’ with ’25’ and adding 24 to an intersecting road. I have not been able to find any ground signage that has route ref numbers on them in existing Mapillary images. I am curious if you know of any government documentation that details the full route system in Suriname? Also do you know if these routes are new and will come with ground signage at any point in the future?

Thank you for helping me better understand the route ref in Suriname and looking forward to hearing from you,
Dcksobuffs

Hello Local_Edits_592,

I see you have updated this ferry route. Since you have some local knowledge with this, I wanted to ask some questions about the tagging here. For the name tagging, is Speedboats to Wakenaam Island the name for this route, or is there is more specific name? Additionally, I noticed foot=no is one of the tags here, while bicycle=yes is also here. Typically for ferries if bicycles are allowed, pedestrians are permitted too. If you know more about how transportation here is intended, can you provide more information on this?

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Hello 5m4u9,

I see you have made classification changes on highways throughout Trinidad. Looking at ways such as way/143346849 and way/143638258, upgrading from residential to primary seems like a big jump in classification. Additionally, these primaries roads that you upgraded do not continue their classification through to a similarly high classification road, and rather end their classification the tertiary road Calle Mamoré. This would suggest they should be secondary at the highest. I am curious to know if you agree with this assessment of the high priority road classification schema in Trinidad.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Hola 5m4u9,

Veo que has realizado cambios en la clasificación de carreteras en todo Trinidad. Al observar vías como way/143346849 y way/143638258, la actualización de residencial a primaria parece un salto demasiado grande en la clasificación. Además, estas carreteras primarias que has actualizado no mantienen su clasificación hasta conectar con otra carretera de clasificación similarmente alta, sino que terminan en la carretera terciaria Calle Mamoré. Esto sugiere que, como máximo, deberían ser carreteras secundarias. Me gustaría saber si estás de acuerdo con esta evaluación del esquema de clasificación de carreteras de alta prioridad en Trinidad.

Gracias y espero tu respuesta.

Thank you for the information you provided. I will defer to your knowledge on this.

Gracias por la información que me proporcionaste. Confío en tus conocimientos sobre este tema.

Hello SoyJosueVerde,

I noticed some highways were reclassified from tertiary and secondary to primary. These roads have maintained a long history of being secondary or tertiary, and do not appear to fit the definition of primary (highway=primary), as the nearby trunk (way/549856689) already serves as the major highway linking large towns in this area. Could you share your reasoning for reclassifying these roads to primary?

I also noticed ref=40 was added to way/904952547 and several surrounding highways. Since that nearby trunk already has that ref tagging along it, do you have any resources to support adding refs to these roads?

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Traducción automática:
Hola SoyJosueVerde,

He observado que algunas carreteras se han reclasificado de terciarias y secundarias a primarias. Estas carreteras tienen una larga historia de ser secundarias o terciarias y no parecen encajar en la definición de primaria (highway=primary), ya que la carretera troncal cercana (way/549856689) ya sirve como la carretera principal que conecta las grandes localidades de la zona. ¿Podrías explicarme el motivo de la reclasificación de estas carreteras como primarias?

También he observado que se ha añadido la referencia 40 a way/904952547 y a varias carreteras circundantes. Dado que la carretera troncal cercana ya tiene esa referencia, ¿dispones de algún recurso para añadir referencias a estas carreteras?

Gracias y espero tu respuesta.

Hello joserrg12,

I noticed that La Ruta Nacional 35 was changed from primary to trunk, with the comment that it is part of a high-capacity network. While I understand the logic, the Costa Rica OSM Wiki indicates that national highways should generally be tagged as highway=primary, and La Ruta Nacional 35 is not listed among the designated trunk routes (osm.wiki/Costa_Rica#%22Red_Vial_Nacional_Primaria%22,%22Ruta_Nacional%22_(National_Primary_Roads). Were you aware of this highway classification guidance?

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Hola joserrg12,

He notado que la Ruta Nacional 35 se cambió de principal a troncal, con la mención de que forma parte de una red de alta capacidad. Si bien entiendo la lógica, la Wiki de OSM de Costa Rica indica que las carreteras nacionales generalmente deben etiquetarse como highway=primary, y la Ruta Nacional 35 no figura entre las rutas troncales designadas (osm.wiki/Costa_Rica#%22Red_Vial_Nacional_Primaria%22,%22Ruta_Nacional%22_(National_Primary_Roads). ¿Conocías esta guía de clasificación de carreteras?

Gracias y espero tu respuesta.

Hello HBFJ, I see you have opened both lanes of GO-213 (way/792932624) and adjacent highways such as GO-139 (way/1450379135) which were set as bidirectional until construction is complete. I conducted some research and found that this article (https://www.worldconstructionnetwork.com/data-insights/construction-go-213-caldas-novas-morrinhos-highway-duplication/) states it will open in 2026.

Do you have any information you can share about it being open now instead of the stated 2026 completion date? Any knowledge you can share about this construction project would be a great help.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

(Tradução gerada)

Olá HBFJ, notei que vocês abriram as duas faixas da GO-213 (way/792932624) e rodovias adjacentes, como a GO-139 (way/1450379135), que estavam configuradas como bidirecionais até a conclusão da obra. Fiz uma pesquisa e encontrei este artigo (https://www.worldconstructionnetwork.com/data-insights/construction-go-213-caldas-novas-morrinhos-highway-duplication/) que indica que a abertura está prevista para 2026.

Vocês têm alguma informação que possam compartilhar sobre o motivo da abertura já ter ocorrido antes da data de conclusão prevista para 2026? Qualquer informação que vocês possam compartilhar sobre este projeto de construção será de grande ajuda.

Obrigado e aguardo seu retorno.

That makes sense that the pavement could be ready, however is it confirmed to be open to traffic yet? If it is not open to traffic yet and adjustments still need to be made, would you be open to adding access=no tags here?

Tiene sentido que el pavimento esté listo, pero ¿se ha confirmado que ya está abierto al tráfico? Si aún no lo está y se necesitan ajustes, ¿estarías dispuesto a añadir etiquetas access=no aquí?