Sorry, no, I cannot confirm that these ways are highways.

I care about the connectivity of highways such that routing application can work properly. I always check for plausibility taking the background imagery into regard, but usually I don't convert highways to something else like hedges or whatever in doubtful situations.

So this is the reason that I appear as last editor of the ways you observed.

Sorry, I just connected the construction road and I have no possibility to verify situation on the ground.

Thank you @woodpeck for blocking this user for 14 days. From my perspective it is a pretty long time, but it might help in getting the user more cooperative.
Usually I would clean up the unconnected ways in this period, but in this case I won't do this. Instead I leave this exercise to @joedal-osm to do it himself when his block ends.

Google translate for French:
Merci à @woodpeck d'avoir bloqué cet utilisateur pour une durée de 14 jours. À mon avis, c'est une période assez longue, mais cela pourrait l'inciter à faire preuve de plus de coopération.
D'ordinaire, je profiterais de ce laps de temps pour nettoyer les chemins déconnectés, mais je ne le ferai pas cette fois-ci. Je laisse plutôt le soin à @joedal-osm d'effectuer ce travail lui-même une fois son blocage levé.

Please stop your not discussed import!
As I expect you not to answer again, I'm going to report you to DWG again.
This looks better than last time, still again there are a lot of unconnected ways: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-3.94596&lat=7.42883&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

Via google translate:
Veuillez cesser votre importation non concertée!
Comme je ne m'attends pas à une nouvelle réponse de votre part, je vais à nouveau vous signaler au DWG.
Cela semble meilleur que la dernière fois, mais il reste tout de même de nombreux tronçons non connectés : https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-3.94596&lat=7.42883&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

Please stop tagging existing higher classified roads into living_street.

Sorry, this was a mistake. Thanks for detecting and repairing!

I already reported this user two times to the DWG, asking for an 0 hours block, but I didn't get an answer yet.
I analyzed the changesets a bit and detected that the user uploaded exactly the same data with 3 days in between.
Please don't start fixing the data. I believe the DWG needs to do a professional revert here.

I deleted the obviously wrong stuff.

Please answer if way/1519715468#map=17/44.272971/8.170892 is fiction or real. I left this hoping for an honest answer

Please stop making such obviously wrong test edits!

Thank you!

Hi, please stop uploading such incredibly long new ways! I reverted this changeset.

It is already over a week and the problem still exists. Did you forget to fix it as promised?

I removed a duplicated unconnected node. There is still one node with the turning circle. See: node/158744302

Where was this terrible import discussed? It is of bad quality. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-6.23346&lat=8.62288&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

Please fix this, otherwise I'm going to ask the DWG for a revert.

You can check if JOSM still indicates errors or warnings. If I didn't make mistakes it shouldn't find more connection errots. Here you could check if I connected your new ways correctly to the already existing road network. What might be more important is to don't uppercase the names and used abbreviations in the names, I didn't care about those.

Thank you. You might notice that I already fixed the connection errors of your previous edits.

> Do we need to remove those from OSM?

Of course you need to adopt existing data in case that it is not accurate any longer!

As a long term JOSM user I ask you to take the warnings / erros from the validator into regard before uploading new stuff. I noticed in other places where you edited that you often don't connect the end nodes of roads with existing and new roads and therefore your uploaded data contain a lot of connectivity errors. On other locations you didn't delete already existing proposed highways, which you should have better reused instead of duplicate them.

Connectivity errors prevent proper routing. See
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-74.43153&lat=40.78112&zoom=17&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=snap_points%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1%2Cunconnected_open_ends_2%2Cunconnected_open_ends_3%2Cunconnected_open_ends_4
and
osm.wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing

This looks very unrealistic and contains a lot of errors (highway=residential on nodes) . Please improve this edit or otherwise I might revert it.

Hi,

please check this new highway way/1529335334. It looks unrealistic on Bing and it is definitely buggy as it is not connected to the rest of the roads.

Node node/7086669843 was not connected.

Hello Guido,

can you please check way/532908952/history#map=19/40.208318/29.058045

something went wrong in your attempt to fix changeset/183888618#map=10/40.7159/29.0594

The error is gone if I revert both this changeset and changeset/183888618, but this is not the correct way to fix the fix.

thank you
ratrun