Hi IllOnlyBeAMinute,
My name is Sanjana, and I’m part of the OSM mapping team at Lyft. I created the ways using Lyft-owned aerial imagery. As there was no street-level imagery available at the entrances or exits, I couldn’t verify private access and left the roads untagged for private use. If you possess local knowledge, I’d greatly appreciate it if you’re adjusting the map accordingly.
I apologize for missing gates and appreciate your observation. I hope this helps clarify my edits. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss anything further, and thank you for your contribution.
Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Sanjana

Hi galen8183,

My name is Sanjana, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your insight. Regarding my edits- I added lane details in this changeset. To accurately apply lane tags. I divided one segment into two shorter ways. Initially, there were two relations on the roundabout & after the split it remained on all the segments. The bus relations have remained where it was.
In any case I apologize if I unintentionally broke the PTv2 relations. Thank you for promptly correcting the relation and your contribution! Unfortunately, bus relations are not our area of expertise & are not within the scope of the lanes project https://github.com/Test-DCT/OSM-LYFT-DCT/issues/26.
We do not validate the accuracy of the applied bus relations. Instead, we focus on maintaining integrity and avoiding disruptions during significant geometric changes. I hope for your understanding in this matter.

Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Sanjana

Hi, Hoserab!
My name is Sanjana and I’m mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for addressing this turn restriction and removing it. The one-way tag indeed permits only a single maneuver when exiting the area. I apologize for the excessive mapping and appreciate your detailed explanation :)

Happy mapping, Sanjana

Hi Baloo Uriza,

My name is Sanjana, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your comment. I appreciate you pointing out my mistake regarding the inaccurate addition of the turn:lanes, which were already correctly added. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience my edits may have caused, and I will be more attentive in the future.
However, regarding the turn:lanes value, I rely on the OSM wiki, which states that the 'none' value should be applied if there are no lane markings or signs determining the allowed maneuvers on the lane. turn=*#Identifying_a_turn_indication:~:text=or%20%3Cempty%3E-,There%20are%20no%20turn,-indications%20on%20this
Could you specify what you reference to when mentioning the possibility of turn lanes “none” value usage based on access:lanes tagging?

Thanks for your contribution to OSM!

Best regards, Sanjana