Hi freebeer,

Thanks for flagging, this was updated by mistake. Deleted the incorrect tag.

Thanks,
siripurapu

"Hi majkaz,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way/458457770 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'residential'.Please look into this and share your observations

Thanks in advance."

"Hi SimonWalduck,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way/461146485 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'residential'.Please look into this and share your observations

Thanks in advance."

"Hi PeZa,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way/266284616 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'residential'.Please look into this and share your observations

Thanks in advance."

"Hi PeZa,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way/266284616 classified as 'track'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'residential'.Please look into this and share your observations

Thanks in advance."

"Hi Riyadi Wibowo,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way/459503129 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'residential'.Please look into this and share your observations

Thanks in advance."

Hi 'diorz38',

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/437490048 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,this should be marked as 'residential' as it is leading to a residential area .

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.

"""Hi diorz38,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the node/4353003629 where unclassified is ending on residential. . However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,this should be marked as 'residential' as it is leading to a residential area and also leading to inconsistency in priority.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."""

"""Hi regi zaky utama,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/499037350 classified as 'teritiary'. However, going by the aerial imagery, partial road seems to be'residential'.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."""

"Hi saputra deo,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/438005734,way 438005690,way 438005697 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, the area around seems to be 'Residential'.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

"Hi Aisah,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/493793940 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,this should be marked as 'residential' as it is leading to a residential area and also we can see that there is a connectivity as well.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

"Hi farras,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/437494173 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,this should be marked as 'residential' as it is leading to inconsistency and a teritiary is abruptly ending on it.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

Please read the way id as way/436516925.

Thanks in advance.

"Hi adiatmad,
Sorry for the inocrrect pings,excuse and please check the below one and ignore the rest.
Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/437494173 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,this should be marked as 'residential' as it is leading to inconsistency.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

"Hi farras,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/437494173 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,this should be marked as 'residential' as it is leading to inconsistency and a teritiary is abruptly ending on it.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

"Hi farras,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/437494173 classified as 'unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,this should be marked as 'residential' as it is leading to inconsistency.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

"Hi Saputra deo,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/501234141 classified as 'Unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, the area around seems to be 'Residental'. Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

"Hi ediyes,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way/444013443 classified as 'primary'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,the primary has ended abruptly on the 'tertiary'.

Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance."

Hi Woodpeck,
I have corrected the alignment for the specified stretch (Way ids: way/607569924 and way/655954594) -
Adding Screenshots for reference
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fbU08_gB79s/XCY7LvTkfmI/AAAAAAAAAGo/PWSXPIM5pmUm0AIV2zQN9lffWTsyIvtJgCL0BGAYYCw/h925/2018-12-28.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ejoAiAnDcI4/XCY7RrvfhvI/AAAAAAAAAGw/0WkzTRCEw2IeXYk0L6FvRl4l667MQ94XACL0BGAYYCw/h952/2018-12-28.png

However, I have not done changes to the stretch going through Gorontalo as the road connectivity and buildings in this city are not in sync with any of the imageries. Please suggest.

Thank you.

The highlighted road(Primary road) spanning across multiple cities was created by external mapper(Adiatma IRM-RV) on 13/07/2018 and is not in sync with any of the Imageries available in JOSM.
I partly worked on this road segment to the extent it falls in the areas served by Grab(within Gorantalo city limits), which was part of my scope of work and corrected the alignment basis Bing and Digipremium.
However, I would now go ahead and correct the entire stretch as it is not appropriate to leave the data misaligned.

scope of work basis Gorantlo city boundary considered - https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cAPTPY9w4OI/XCYw25DIBcI/AAAAAAAACSc/r9grBcsKv1UyrbCQ2FvKuD7J5STJuMkewCL0BGAYYCw/h1080/2018-12-28.png

Existing data entire stretch misaligned - https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-BzJG1ONs7lM/XCYPI3Njj_I/AAAAAAAACSI/iUa4njsopHArE37pgx8JLJP7U3FGk7SMgCL0BGAYYCw/h833/2018-12-28.png.

I will confirm once corrections are done

Thanks,
Siripurapu