Hello, Aarav588;
We previously contacted you to request clarification on the source used to justify adding the `ref=E41` tag, but we did not receive a response. Consequently, we removed it due to the lack of verifiable supporting evidence. However, we noticed that the tag has been added again.

Could you please provide a reliable source that supports the addition of the `ref=E41` tag? If there is a verifiable source, we'd be happy to review it. Otherwise, please refrain from re-adding the tag without supporting evidence.
mona_magdy

Hello, Aarav588;
Thank you for improving OSM maps in the UAE. I noticed that you added the road ref E41 to a road. The ref tag must be added based on the official source. Could you please share the official source you used for adding this tag? If you don't have one, please remove the ref tag from the road.
mona_magdy

Hello Aarav 588,
Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap in the United Arab Emirates. I noticed that you added the 'ref' tag for some streets, for example:
(way/1465312042, way/216080808, way/95097247)
I checked the Mapillary tracks to look for any road signs that might support these edits, and I didn't find any sign containing your value-added. Could you please let me know the official source you used to add these ref tags?
Just a quick note: when editing ref tags, it’s necessary to have an official or reliable source for the change and to include that source in the changeset. It’s also recommended to keep changesets small and add a short description of the edits, according to OSM guidelines. For more information, please check this link:
osm.wiki/Changeset
Regards,
mona_magdy

Hello Aarav 588,
Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap in the United Arab Emirates. I noticed that you added the 'ref' tag for some streets, for example:
(way/139375947, way/139375946, way/307759093, way/307759111, way/139375945, way/139375944)
I checked the Mapillary tracks to look for any road signs that might support these edits, and I didn't find any sign containing your value-added. Could you please let me know the official source you used to add these ref tags?
Just a quick note: when editing ref tags, it’s necessary to have an official or reliable source for the change and to include that source in the changeset. It’s also recommended to keep changesets small and add a short description of the edits, according to OSM guidelines. For more information, please check this link:
osm.wiki/Changeset
Regards,
mona_magdy

Thank you for the clarification.

Hello, memmane;
Thank you for your contribution to updating the roads on OpenStreetMap in the UAE. In this changeset (changeset/177953177#map=19/24.205259/55.772586&layers=N). I deleted this street (way/1472757240) and merged this street (way/1472757241) with this street (way/228569498) because they made a sharp angle and the classification 'highway=unclassified' is too large for the shape of these streets evident in recent satellite images, so perhaps it would be better to lower the classification to a 'highway=track' that would be more suitable for these lanes., based on all the available images in the JOSM. and coulud you please share with me the sourse to these constraints in this set of changes (changeset/177960598#map=18/24.204801/55.771787&layers=N).
Regards
mona_magdy

Hello, mkarau,
Thank you very much for your help in updating the OSM maps in the UAE. I noticed that you added several new roads, and I verified them using recent images dated (Vantor satellite imagery via Vantor Hub 2025-11-17). However, I also noticed that you used the `construction=yes` tag for these roads. This tag is ineffective because it doesn't clearly indicate that these roads are under construction and keeps them within the route. The correct way to use the construction tag is `highway=construction` and `construction=*` (the classification is appropriate). This is a wiki page that explains more about using the tag construction=*, as shown in these roads (way/1346312029, way/976307189). For example, the roads you created (way/1453592240, way/1453592239) have tags `highway=tertiary` & `construction=yes`, and the appropriate tags for them are `highway=construction` & `construction=tertiary`; this road (way/1453592242) has the appropriate tag `highway=construction` & `construction=motorway_link`; this footway (way/1453592241) should have the tags `highway=construction` & `construction=footway`. It is preferable to connect new roads to an existing road network so that they do not appear to be floating.
This way, we accurately represent the reality while maintaining OSM policy and the route within OSM.
Regards,
Mona Magdy

Hello mkarau,
I understand your point of view, but I would like to clarify that anyone making modifications to the OSM maps, whether local or non-local, is expected to follow the OSM policy, as I explained in detail in my previous reply. We hope you understand this, and thanks again.
Regards,
mona_magdy

Hello, mkarau;
Thank you for contributing to improving OSM maps in the UAE. We understand that you make adjustments based on local knowledge, and we do not change those adjustments, but we fix errors. For example, on this road (way/509050842), it is incorrect for the road to be unconnected to a road network, even if it is under construction. It should be connected to a road network, and you are making it unconnected with this adjustment you made. However, there are other solutions you can implement if this road is no longer operational. You can change its status to `highway=construction` as explained on the Wikipage for roads under construction (highway=construction).
If there is a barrier in this part of the road (24.5293531, 54.4189452), you can place it according to its correct type (block, gate, etc.) as explained on the Wikipage for barriers (barrier=*). However, the road must also be connected to a road network so that it is not floating. Since it is also incorrect to place a barrier sign at the beginning or end of a road without connecting it to a road network, as I have done here. (node ​​13114224746
node/13179773957). Another solution is that if the route is no longer in use, you can use the `disused highway` tag (disused:highway=*). In all these cases, the route must be connected to a road network to avoid any issues on the OSM Map server.
Regards
mona_magdy

Hello, acchaves;
I want to thank you for the modifications you are making to the OSM maps in the UAE. I noticed that you have operated this street more than once and are uploading based on an Esri World Imagery as your source.
However, I have a recent image dated (Vantor satellite imagery via Vantor Hub 2025-10-18), and it shows that the road is still under construction. If you have a more recent source, could you please share it with me? If not, please revert this location as is.
Regards
mona_magdy

Hello, acchaves;
I want to thank you for the modifications you are making to the OSM maps in the UAE. You created these roads and added the oneway tag based on Esri World Imagery, but this update does not appear in the Esri World Imagery. Can you please explain the source you relied on to make this update?
Regards
mona_magdy

Hello, mkarau;
Thank you for contacting us.
I wanted to clarify that we have contacted you and have not made any changes to your modifications to benefit from your insights as someone living in the UAE. However, it is possible to remove barriers from the end of the streets, as, based on what you said, the road is no longer connected, until we reach the optimal way to represent reality and improve Open Street Map maps in the UAE.
Regards
mona_magdy

Hello, mkarau;
I want to thank you for your contribution to improving OSM maps.
I noticed that you placed a block at the end of a road and another on a road under construction (node/13114224746, node/13179773957).
I wanted to clarify that we are making these changes according to the rules stated on the website OSM Wiki.
Regarding my specific case of placing a barrier at the end of an intersection, according to the OSM Wiki website (barrier=*), it is incorrect, as a barrier is not placed at the end of a road or at an intersection of two roads. As for the case of placing a barrier on a road under construction, it is meaningless because the road is under construction and therefore inoperable; placing the barrier does not add anything new.
We also make these changes based on recent satellite images and include their dates in the source.
We have no problem making any changes based on local knowledge or survey, but we make modifications that are consistent with OSM policy.
Regards
mona_magdy

Hello, OR174;
I want to thank you for your contribution to improving the OSM maps in Mauritania. I noticed that you changed the classification of these roads (way/1228842667, way/1431990600) from 'highway=residential' to 'highway=primary'. Then I changed it to 'highway=unclassified' in this changeset (changeset/172553243) because it is a logical classification, based on the OSM policy
Here are these links:
highway=unclassified
highway=primary,
which states that the "primary" classification has specific criteria, the primary classification is generally reserved for major national or regional routes with higher traffic importance.. Could you please consider adjusting the classification to better reflect the nature of the area?
Regards
mona_magdy

Hi Poolanaveen,
Thank you for contacting us and for helping to improve the quality of OSM maps in the UAE.
Regards
mona_magdy

Hello, snavee17;
I want to thank you, Team Uber, for your contribution to improving footway routing on OSM maps in the UAE.
I noticed that you removed the 'barrier=kerb' tag from the nodes, for example, which was added by user "
Poolanaveen" in this changeset (changeset/171304969#map=17/24.534990/54.431773&layers=N) and you removed them in this changeset (changeset/171725933) was correct according to OSM rules (barrier=kerb#:~:text=The%20tag%20barrier,to%20different%20users.). I verified from these concepts based on the Mapillary tracks (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=757049467084760
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=772192632344634
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1184379213718411).
Regards
mona_magdy

Thanks

Hello, Maryna Makarava;
We would like to thank you for your continuous communication with us, and we understand your point of view.
I would like to clarify that the connection you initially drew in this changeset :
Link: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=167211095
Does not exactly match the example you attached
Link: osm.org/edit?editor=id&#map=19/24.429510/54.563747
However, we took your feedback into account and modified the connection again using this method
Link: changeset/168264242
This method is also recognized in the United Arab Emirates and achieves the intended routing in the same way as the example you provided.
We hope this serves as a compromise solution that is correct and ensures proper routing.
Thank you again for your collaboration.
mona_magdy

Hello, Siarhei Salauyou;
Hello, Siarhei Salauyou;
Thank you for reaching out and for your prompt response. I understand your point.
Regards,
mona_magdy

Hi Maryna Makarova,
Thanks for your explanation, but please share with me some cases that agree with your opinion to make it clearer to me.
In addition, I want to share my thoughts with you in those tracks
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=878641299707017
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1234655560279093
We see that the arrows agree with our modification. If you have an official source that agrees with your opinion, please share it with us
Regards
mona_magdy