If you can, please provide a source as well as an estimated date that it will reopen.

I-579 should be highway=motorway all the way up to where it joins I-279. Similar to how the junction of I-79 and I-279 does not have any motorway_link. I'll change this.

Got it, thanks.

Why is the entire I-279 HOV a motorway_link?

This road is certainly named "Lysle Avenue". Some street signs omit the suffix, but that's not the proper name.

I find this change unlikely. While it's common in certain areas for street signs to omit the name's suffix, TIGER, USPS, and Allegheny County GIS are all in agreement that the street's proper name includes the suffix here. I've added it back.

I find this change unlikely. While it's common in certain areas for street signs to omit the name's suffix, TIGER, USPS, and Allegheny County GIS are all in agreement that the street's proper name includes the suffix here. I've added it back.

I find this change unlikely. While it's common in certain areas for street signs to omit the name's suffix, TIGER, USPS, and Allegheny County GIS are all in agreement that the street's proper name includes the suffix here. I've added it back.

Well, in this case it would be appropriate to add `covered=yes` to the highways (or just the covered portion), which is what the wiki page is hinting at.

This can be useful, for example it will prompt StreetComplete to ask for the maxheight.

I think the wiki page could be reworded, to indicate that a useful fix would be to add a missing tag, not just to swap a 0/1 for a -1/0.

Note that layer=-1 doesn't mean "underground"

Was likely broken by changeset/100323463

A road that physically doesn't exist shouldn't be tagged as highway=primary. Use abandoned:highway or demolished:highway.

Should the stop ids not simply be `ref`=*? It's in common use for bus stops and whatnot, and it's not particular to the GTFS feed, they are posted on the signs.

Can you please cool it with the inflammatory changeset descriptions? They are not relevant to anything.

To be more clear: You should not be deleting features that really exist on the ground and are properly formatted. If you're remapping something it should be done as a single change so it does not look like you are deleting things.

That's not an acceptable way to map. I have restored them in changeset/103107644

Why delete the parking lots?

"SR" is correct.

service=parking_aisle seems appropriate for those roads, and that sure looks unpaved in the imagery -- if you have a source that says otherwise please include it.

Elevation should be given in meters, not feet.