Hi mdelatorre,

I appreciate your collaborative efforts to improve the ref network. I’ll stay tuned for more OSM data and Wiki updates.

Cheers,
Luke

Hello mdelatorre,
OSMmapninja is no longer on the team, I can pick up the conversation. Thanks for providing the information and link to your forum post. I understand representing refs exactly as seen on signage (MEXICO for federal refs and MEX for State of Mexico), but I’m concerned the current documentation will lead to confusion and inconsistencies. In addition to the resource I sent before, the "Highways In Mexico" policy lists ref=MEX as the appropriate value for “MEXICO” signposts. (See the screenshot and description under “Destination Sign Examples”: osm.wiki/Mexico#Highways_in_Mexico). More recently, I see you’ve been adding MEX-EM on some segments: (way/784589342, way/29660416, way/958183889. If I understand correctly from policy and your forum post, these should either be “EM” or “MEX”. I am happy to follow the best policy decided by the community, but want to be sure everyone is on the same page.

Please let me know your thoughts.
Luke

Hi NunoCaldeira, thank you for reaching out.

I did not change the ref tags, only their format. I updated "VR 1 - ER 106” to "VR 1;ER 106” and "VE 1 - ER 101" to "VE 1;ER 101” to match OSM policy on listing multiple values within a key. (osm.wiki/Multiple_values)

Regards,
Ruggs

Hi NunoCaldeira, thank you for following up and making the edit.

Hi GBS Sidhu, thanks for the response. I will make sure the missing highways are fixed.

Cheers!

Hi GBS Sidhu,

You deleted a few highways that appear to be routable per aerial imagery. The secondary south of node/4330946416 and the secondary east of node/1924095867 both look to be open in Maxar Premium. Is there a reason you deleted them?

Happy mapping!

Hi DFFYou, I’m curious about a couple edits on this changeset. You removed a secondary link (way/787014968) adjacent to Jalan Kledang Utara which ESRI World Imagery shows as missing. However, OpenStreetCam imagery from June 2020 (https://openstreetcam.org/details/2350430/674/track-info) shows it currently exists. I added it again. Additionally, you added a lift gate with access=no to Jalan Merdeka (way/300799865). This is the second time this year you have added a barrier blocking access at this bridge. OpenStreetCam from April 2020 (https://openstreetcam.org/details/2167334/230/track-info) and June 2020 (https://openstreetcam.org/details/2718514/526/track-info) show no barriers. Let me know what you think about these examples.

Hi DFFYou, I’m curious about a couple edits on this changeset. Firstly, you added access=no to way/787014968 (way/787014968) citing Esri World Imagery. There is no indication in ESRI imagery or July 2020 OpenStreetCam (https://openstreetcam.org/details/2729270/451/track-info) Jalan Jelapang is access restricted for all travelers. Are you using a different resource? Secondly, you disconnected way/303033317 (way/787014968) from Jalan Jelapang. OpenStreetCam from June 2020 (https://openstreetcam.org/details/2345746/278/track-info) shows the highways should connect. I have edited both scenarios.

Hi Eoin D, thanks for mapping! The buildings look great. Keep up the good work!

Thank you for the feedback, AgusQui. When editing, I considered these to be minor avenues based on their destinations.  However, as a local editor, you have more experience with the highways in this area.

Thank you

Hi literan, thank you for connecting the crossing cycle and pedestrian ways I left unconnected here. I will make sure to connect these going forward.