Hi Silva1989,

Thank you for the information and for making the edit!

Hi Silva1989,

Thanks for all your work here! I noticed that in this changeset you applied highway=tertiary to forestry roads. Could you please provide some clarification on this edit? It is my understanding that the tertiary classification is meant for roads that link smaller towns and villages rather than forestry roads.

I also noticed that since Caminho Florestal Pico da Burrinha - Ladeiras (way/799495231 to way/504255739) has been classified as tertiary, it is now only accessible from roads of lower classifications. What are your thoughts on either connecting this to the greater highway network or changing it to highway=unclassified?

Thanks, and happy mapping!

Thanks for getting back to me and keeping an eye on the map data here. In regard to my initial question, since the roads in question are seasonal I believe that a conditional restriction (osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions) would be the best way to model them.
As for the roads you asked about, I did notice that user woy_cb removed some ‘highway=*' tags nearby which would keep those ways from rendering in OSM’s standard tiles. I see that you’ve added 'highway=track' back to one of the ways (way/718384558) but woy_cb also removed highway=path from two other ways in the same changeset (way/718384559 and way/718384550). Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=202149339175392) shows hikers using this connection, so it appears highway=path should be added back here. Do you agree? If so, I’d be happy to make the fixes.
woy_cb is not affiliated with our team, though they appear to be recently active in OSM if you’d like to reach out to them about their edits in the area. Apple’s OSM team complies with OSMF’s Organised Editing Guidelines and all of our edits can be easily identified by the hashtag ‘#adt’ in the changeset comment and all of our mappers’ profiles identify them as members of our team. You can read more about Apple's work in OSM on the project’s github (https://github.com/osmlab/appledata).

Hi IDKS, I revisited this area and want to ask if you have more information about whether these roads are drivable in the winter in addition to the summer time as you suggested. I’m curious about how people are accessing this restaurant (way/945812605) during both seasons. Any help or suggestions for tagging would be appreciated, thank you!

Hi IDKS, thank you for reaching out. I removed the highway tags based on the piste:type, piste:grooming, and piste:difficulty tags. It was my understanding from the tagging that the ways were only ski runs and not open to vehicles. Thank you for revising the data. Happy mapping! -mapatite

Hi mikkolukas, thanks for pointing out that changeset conversation. My team and I will keep this in mind moving forward. -mapatite

Thanks for letting me know, and for making the fix.

Hello Dimacn,
Thank you for reaching out. I connected the roads based on aerial imagery and Mapillary imagery through this area, but now realize the gap in this barrier is not large enough for cars. I have revised the data in this area. Thank you for the feedback.

Thanks!

Hi literan, thank you for reaching out.

I added the access=permissive tag here, because I saw the lift gate and the signage you referenced in ground level imagery. I observed that this service road leads to a parking lot behind the hospital, so my understanding was that the area is accessible to the public, upon payment in exchange for a pass. Based on access tag definitions established on the Russian OSM Wiki, I presumed these conditions fit best with access=permissive, although I now understand that public vehicles do not have easy access to hospitals in Russia. Thank you for clarifying, and please let me know if you have anymore questions or comments.

-mapatite

Hi Kaissner, welcome to OSM and thanks for all your work here! I noticed here (changeset/81297349#map=16/-34.7302/-58.5297) and here (changeset/81280294) that you deleted some existing roads and drew them back in from scratch without adding back in some of the tags that existed on the original features. However, it is best practice to modify existing features instead of deleting them to preserve information that other users have added to OSM. For more information, please see Good Practices: osm.wiki/Good_practice. Thanks again for all your work here, and please reach out if you have any questions!

Correction: The source is DigitalGlobe 2019-06-02, not ESRI World Imagery

No worries! Thank you for the information.

Hi gaby96, thank you for mapping! I noticed here (changeset/77141996#map=16/-31.4656/-64.2126) and here (changeset/69907304#map=13/-31.4078/-64.1784) that you changed some highway=motorway_link tags to the lower link classification of the two connecting roads. Per global OSM policy, links extending from motorways should be classified as highway=motorway_link, as the classification is not reserved for those which lead to the motorway. Is there a specific local policy which overrules the global policy in this case?

Hi RobertH-PUM, thanks for mapping! I noticed that you have added ‘access=no’ tags on A1 between Cosevita and Ilia here (changeset/75851548), but that tag is for roads that are in use but not accessible to the general public, such as military or government restricted roads. I read an article that suggested this section of the A1 construction project has been canceled. I am wondering if you have any information about the state of this project, and if it does in fact have restricted access to meet the ‘access=no’ criteria. If not, I might suggest changing the construction tags back, or as an alternative an ‘abandoned:highway=motorway’ tag. This way, we can avoid giving people the false impression of the motorway being open. Here is some more information about mapping construction areas and features no longer in use: osm.wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts. Thanks for all your work here, and please feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Hey OrionX,

When I edited that junction it was not my intention to cancel your changes, but rather to edit in a way that was consistent with global policy and best practices. I am more accustomed to seeing intersections modeled like this in Russia node/18485000#map=18/58.52324/31.24993. Here, the turn lanes are not modeled using highway_links. This results in a less cluttered intersection, which still allows proper routing. The way this junction is modeled now introduces the need for multiple turn restrictions. For instance you are now able to turn left from way/657415463 to way/35090230 and vice versa. I just wanted to give you context as to why I made those edits.

Hello OrionX,

I have reached out to you about over complicating junctions in this changeset: changeset/65724130 but got no response. I noticed you reverted my edits with this changeset: changeset/76725289#map=18/56.86604/35.91326. I will likely change it back to OSM policy unless you have a reason you are modeling it this way. Here are some best practices: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer. You can also tag lane specific information on one way instead of digitizing multiple ways per the Lanes OSM policy: osm.wiki/Lanes.

Thanks

Привет OrionX,

Я связалась с вами по поводу сложных перекрестов в этом наборе изменений: changeset/65724130, но не получила ответа. Я заметила, что вы вернули мои поправки в этом наборе изменений: changeset/76725289#map=18/56.86604/35.91326. Если у вас нет причин моделировать это таким образом то я скорее всего я поменяю это назад в соответствии с правилами OSM. Вот несколько рекомендаций: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer. В соответствии с правилами OSM, вы также можете пометить информацию о конкретной полосе, а не оцифровывать несколько полос: osm.wiki/Lanes.

Спасибо

Hi OrionX, thanks for mapping! I noticed that you have been creating some over complicated junctions here. Please try to refrain from adding links, road segments, and turn restrictions that are not visible in imagery. Here is a link to some best practices:osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions!