I don't sugest to use constuction:highway, the tag highway=construction is well established.
In case of roads which do no longer exist the tag highway=disused is simply wrong, in the past highway=razed was used for that, now it should be razed:highway=*
If you use OSM as part of your GIS you still should try to contribute in a way that is acepted by the community.

OK, I've restored the route relations here:
changeset/63643711

OK, I am trying to fix this. The river is already restored...

Hab es wieder auf path zurückgeändert.
Wäre nett, wenn Du mal auf CS Kommentare oder posts reagieren würdest.

Moin! Schau bitte noch mal auf den Weg way/635440976
Ist mir wegen highway=p aufgefallen,sollte wohl eigentlich ein geschlossener Weg mit highway=pedestrian sein?

Hi! I've noticed that you added some highway=disused like this one recently.
The tag is not often used for this, better use e..g. disused:highway=service because this also tells us what the closed road was used for. See also osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
I wonder if you really mapped the closed road because I don't see any road in BDOrtho IGN?

Hi and welcome to OSM!
I've noticed this changeset because of the unusual tag highway=crossing. Was this tag suggested by Go Map ?
If I got that right the sat images show a bridge and steps or ramps connecting this bridge with the primary roads. The bridge itself is not connected to the sidewalks next to primary roads, so it should be tagged
highway=footway + bridge=yes + layer=1
Next, draw the to ways which connect it to the road network.
Maybe add sidewalk=left or sidewalk=right to the primary roads where this is feasable.

Hi Andy,
well, so this will be one of many unanswered cs comments unless sabiyana is still active for OSM...

oops, meant footway, not path

what do you mean? I see that you added the note but it was and still is a abandoned:highway=path

I agree that it should be kept in this case. Maybe add a note that points to this discussion?

Some of the new residential roads added by
you looked strange. Parts are paved, parts are barely visble. I have no idea if the latter are really usable. At least they seem not to be used often and they have different surfaces. Without local knowledge I would not map them with only IBGE as a source.

Hi, I am also an armchair mapper, sitting in Germany. I prefer to map nothing in cases where sat images are poor. All normal image sources provided by JOSM seem to show two rails on an embankment, so I think cars cannot pass the rails there.

two things:
1) The name tag on the nodes like
node/5515708425
should be removed.
2) The ways like
way/571731548
I think they are not needed at all, as they duplicate the information of the nodes.

I hope the polski wiki also says that you should add the tag to a node on the highway?

I suppose that was not intentional. Can I help restore the data?

Hi! I've noticed that you removed a river here:
way/247827893
What was the reason?
You also removed some route relations. Was that intended?

Hi! I wonder what this highway=underground means:
way/561758293
Maybe the building is just a roof and the part of the below it a highway=path + covered=yes ?

Hi! I've changed the unusual highway=abandoned:footway to the common
abandoned:highway=footway.
After doing that I wondered if abandoned: is the right prefix for a way that is not visible as
the wiki
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix for abandoned: starts with "still visible". Maybe you find a better prefix there?

Thanks for the quick response :-)