There are signs to the north. You're may be tilted and may think I'm stupid but that doesn't mean you're right

The dismount tag implies a restriction on mounted cycling - i.e. pedalling, not an advisory "cyclists dismount" sign. How here are cyclists supposed to be routed beyond the end of the cycleway?

What if cyclists want to access the various other paths connected only to the footway? There isn't a law nor sign prohibiting this

+ updated access tags on cycleways

I made the edit based on the smaller "chopsticks" signs at the side of the road; that's what indicates the start of motorway restrictions in a legal capacity. It's a whole thing, implying restrictions such as national speed limit, restriction against pedestrians, bicycles, horses and learner drivers, among other technical details.

The gantry sign is technically just a direction sign, you could walk past it on foot legally up to the chopsticks sign and you'd be well within your rights (not that you'd want to), assuming there are no signs elsewhere indicating a pedestrian restriction on the A2.

To get around the GPS navigation issue you could tag something like destination:ref, since after the diverge point you are obviously committed to joining the motorway.

^^Plus turning lanes, signal positions

No worries, glad I could help :)

Instead of deleting it, maybe change it to landuse=retail

Hi! Have you considered tagging the build date using start_date, e.g. "start_date=1995"?

If you spam people's history feeds out of your own carelessness, expect people to complain and don't be annoyed by that

+ expanded pavement network

This junction is not traffic signal controlled

Hi, why have you moved roundabout names to individual nodes?

Do you have any supporting evidence of a legal restriction on pedestrians around the junction? That is aside from whether it makes sense to use as a pedestrian

Is this a specific type of road sign used to denote a road name? M-40 is a route number (described by the ref tag) and it's not accepted practice to duplicate it with the name tag

This junction is only partially signal controlled and otherwise, roundabout rules apply

Because oneway=yes is implied by junction=circular. You won't see a change in rendering, or any routing application that correctly interprets the junction=circular tag.

Does this junction not qualify as a roundabout? According to the wiki (junction=roundabout#Possible_misinterpretations), the presence of traffic lights doesn't impact whether or not it is considered a roundabout according to OSM standards.

junction=roundabout#Possible_misinterpretations specifies that there can be signals, but that if the signals were to go out, the circular traffic would have priority.

I'm not sure that this junction is even signal controlled considering the sharks teeth seen in satellite imagery (corroborated by yield signs on google street view). It may be that they only serve the pedestrian crossings, or it may be that they're also used as a traffic management strategy. Though the yield signs target traffic entering the junction so according to the wiki this seems to fit within its definition of a roundabout.

I'm not 100% familiar with US, NY and NYC traffic law but at signals I believe pedestrians and vehicles only have right of way on their respective green lights - I'm not sure if this still applies if the lights lose power. In terms of vehicular traffic I'd argue this definitely fits the given definition of a roundabout, despite it being much different to the same-old idea of a strictly circular roundabout with crossings only around the outside.

Do the cars have to give way to pedestrians, or is it signal controlled? It's relatively common in the UK to find roundabouts with signals and pedestrian crossings, sometimes even accessing the center of the roundabout.

I wouldn't disagree with junction=circular if it's a pedestrian priority type situation. Regardless it's definitely not just a oneway street that forms a loop.