As shown in the source tag, the Data originated from the DRR database. Its possible the road will be asphalted in the future, but as of today, no aerial images bear this out.
If a road has a ref, I add it. The construction tag was not appropriate as there was already a track there, and I had no evidence work was being done. To placate your concerns, I have changed it to unpaved minor rd, with the ref as a note only. We can upgrade once a survey or more evidence is found.
But its an ill wind as they say..., as there were a number of other "tracks" in this area that have now become 2 lane asphalted roads, including a new link bridge over the Kwae Noi,... all of which I have now added bringing the map up to date as best we can.
Cheers.

Yes , it was a futile attempt to correct the poor work by the M S Uni. I have since asked you to do a mass deletion of these, with no comment back. I now just delete them when I'm bored, but you cud do for me en masse if you agree.

Hi, This is not the way to tag malaria hotspots... if you want to trace a building, then trace the building outline... if you want to mark an area, then tag it as such.
This is poor sloppy mapping and not in the spirit of OSM. I will change these myself from building to area unless, which more accurately reflects your outlines.

There are many shapes here tagged as areas. They are poorly drawn, often overlap roads, and in many places, have been traced twice. The mapper has not contributed for over a year.
I am removing the worst examples.

OK, so you can't be bothered to answer ... here is a another one ... Way: 781796261 ... a new road from you... no source data...crosses the G312, this section also from you...... a junction node drawn on with the East-West carriageway, but no shared node on the West-East carriageway.
I really doubt if this is the reality on the ground. I have corrected some edits but you are making loads of mistakes.
Russ

This is also being discussed at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=794135#p794135

Maraianapepsico - Please be careful with your edits; you have just changed a jungle track in Thailand, into a 70kmph secondary road, 70 mtrs wide!
I have corrected it.

Hi,
Just wondering where the source for this track came from, and wud be nice if you mentioned. If GPS, at least we know it was passable when ridden/walked.
If traced, then we can treat with caution.
Cheers, Russ.

I appreciate your response, but this road does not really meet that description. The word Soi does not necessarily mean its an alley - you must go more by the physical characteristics and usage.
You should also consider that if many other roads of this nature have been tagged in a certain manner, it does not look good if you select one area of Chiang Mai, and use a different standard. Please consider joining our OSM Thai users forum, where we can help guide you.

mCloud - please explain why you have changed the North end of this way to an "alley", where it is a concrete road approx 3 mts wide, and have left the south end as a paved unclassified road, when in fact it is a gravel track through the orchards ?
Your strange interpretation of road tags is not in line with other local & experience mappers and causing us great concern.

Abedoul - You seem to have added a few roads (or at least made them into dual carriageways) in this city, but looking at the junction here :
osm.org/edit#map=19/38.24082/101.96638
it seems a real mess, with the trunk and primary roads not connecting. I see no underpasses or traffic lights, to suggest the roads don't connect. You have not connected any of the side roads, allowing them to just cross the primary, which I know isn't true. Finally, if tracing from Bing, please draw at least some of the U-turns in as it makes navigation on the ground, so much easier.
Perhaps you were not the first to draw these roads, but the history clearly shows u created the second carriageway and added the one-way tags.
Rgds.

Hi Bernhard,
Ah, yes ... looks like when adding the parallel highway, I inadvertently put another parallel line way out, and probably didn't see it.
Thanks for letting me know, ... I have just deleted it.
Best, Russ.

Oum, I'm a little confused as to why in your "changing road shape" edit, you have turned about 20km of Hwy 304 into a road with the access=private tag ? Its just the North-South carriageway.
Naturally using routing in this area gives some very strange results.
Im assuming it was a careless mistake, and I have removed the offending tag today, but you may like to review any other edits where you have changed things and might have made the same mistake.
The sections of the 304 either side, do not carry the access=private tag ... just the new bits you played with. If it was not an error, please explain the rationale behind it.
Rgds, Russ

Mrs VLD - You have not connected this road to Hwy 2, but did connect the small Soi to the link, where in reality there is a fence and a hedge ... sloppy mapping at its finest.
But you have gone now ... left the Facebook team .. and left us to sort out the mess. Reach out to you .. where ?? You have stopped mapping.
Fixed now.

This road is one of the most well tagged in Thailand ... it looks like a farm track, but is it really one way, & has street lighting ?
I have changed it to something more probable, but welcome your comment if Im wrong.

Soira - thank you for adding additional traffic signals and crossings in Chiang Mai... unfortunately you have not been very careful when adding resulting a placing a "kink" in the road. You have to zoom in a lot to see it, and while it might only be 5 meters on the ground, my GPS suddenly tells me to make a turn, when in reality, the road is straight.
OSM has tools for straightening roads, but you don't need them if you plot with more care. Rgds,

Dear oum13928 ... I note that at the time of writing this comment you appear to be new mapper of 4 months, and chose to stay nothing about yourself on your profile...
Why, do you think its OK to change the status of major Thai highways such as this Hwy 321, without posting on our Thai forum ? These changes go against work experienced mappers have done, and do not follow our Thai wiki guidelines on road status. When I laboriously plotted this as a dual carriageway, and chose its status, why do you think you have a better idea that someone who has been mapping Thailand for 10 years.
I noticed your changes as you failed to take the time to change the status of the U-turns which throw up error messages as they are not the same status as the roads they connect.
I will post this on our forum and unless I receive a satisfactory response, will commence to undo all your road tagging changes.
Rgds, Russ.

Dear MamaJib, I happened to look at some of your edits in this area, and this node (Node: ปลาร้าจ่าวิรัช (6902943160), is actually a shop that sells the fish sauce made in the factory next door. You tagged it as a restaurant...
However, this is the exact same mistake made by Google !!
So I looked at a few more in the area ..... the motorbike repair shop, the Police station, the bridge, the Insurance Co office, and other restaurants, all share the EXACT same Thai name as Google have used... almost as if you cut and pasted from the site. Can you read Thai script?
Please note that OSM contributions must come from information in the Public Domain, (or traced from Bing, which we can do) but not copied from Google Maps/Streetview.
Rgds, Russ.

Hi Aruno,
I see you have mapped many of these "Cottages in the Corn Field", as tourism=wilderness_hut.
I have ridden by a few and I can confirm they are not Cottages, and they are not offering refuge for Trekkers and the like. They are not closed in, have no fireplace, and form no part of the tourism industry.
At best, they are shelters either for the land workers, or when on the roadside, are often Bus shelters, albeit of an informal nature.
Please can you stop mapping them as Wilderness_huts, and use the tag amenity=shelter. You may use the Thai script to name them, but please don't use Google translate as the English meaning is inaccurate.
Please read the Wiki : tourism=wilderness_hut
for more info.
I am changing them whenever I come across them.

Huadung - Way: 709659799 is a fragment of waterway that you have added, but tagged as a RIVER for its mere 10 meters. The way its connects to is a stream.
Is there any reason for this logic ?
Surely a good mapper would join the sections for consistency - are you familiar with this tool ?