Yes, I will do that. I think the best way would be to delete the relation and make a new one. I am not sure how that is done in iD? I know how to remove things from a relation, but not how to delete the relation itself.

If I understand you correctly,
then I have just now corrected it. Please check my work. Thanks

I would go based on signs and in some cases, common sense. Bike symbol in red circle with red diagonal: bicycle=no. Any sign saying dismount: bicycle=dismount. The pedestrian area here to me is a commonsense bicycle=dismount as riding a bike there would not be socially responsible and maybe even difficult.

I believe I put the source of the information you're looking for in the source= tag. I don't normally map in this country, but I saw a post in a highway-related group on Facebook about the new interchange, and I decided I would help with mapping it. I believe the "George W Bush" name was mentioned in both a news article and in an official website for the interchange project. Perhaps it is just a commemorative name like "Harry Flood Byrd Highway" is for "Leesburg Pike" in Virginia? I'm also NO fan of the former president of the US, but since it was mentioned in the information, I assumed that's what it was called now. I think there's a tag, name:official or official_name that might be more appropriate for the George W Bush Highway.

I'm not sure you were the one who added this. Anyway, I have edited the proposed road (scheduled to be constructed in 2023) to show it as proposed.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92743796

I am unable to find any proof that this new extension of CR 88 (295th Street East), running north of 292nd Street East, exists. Dakota County GIS doesn't even show it (2020 imagery). So either this is newer and the county isn't showing it yet, or it never existed at all.

I can't find any proof of the existence of any new road for CR 88 running north of 292nd Street East. What is your source? Esri imagery does not show this road. Is it under construction or proposed? Dakota County GIS doesn't even show it.

Why does way/45578896 (I 394) have access = no? Is it closed for long-term construction?

I'm thinking that maybe there is a sign that actually says "Service Road".

I'd have to check street view (I doubt it exists) or visit in person...if I can even get there...look like there are lift gates)

As Gaylord Rockies is a very recent development, it definitely could use some improved mapping; and more development around it is occurring now and will continue for some years I am sure.

It looks like this is a "service road" or "access road" to the back side of the convention center (not for guests, tourists, people attending conventions there) for employees, etc. So maybe it *should* have Service Road for its name? I will look into it further and see if that makes sense or not.

No, I don't think so. I don't even remember seeing this. But I will double-check to be safe.

Good question. I second this question.
Please let us know.

I've panned and zoomed around there and Pembina and have come to the conclusion that ND 66 east of I-29 should be primary. Same with ND 59 in Pembina.

Shouldn't ND 66 from the west side of the I-29 interchange to the Minnesota state line be primary? Or maybe MN 11 should be secondary?? The difference really stands out to someone looking at the map and seems inconsistent.

I just saw that you mapped First Look Trail two days ago. You did not include a source tag. What source did you use? I also saw in the changeset info above the imagery used, but I do not understand what the second imagery is; it doesn't look like something that's actually available to me as a mapper.

I was going to map First Look Trail and another new, short trail, but I didn't because I didn't feel I could map it accurately enough without imagery showing the two new trails.

I have also emailed the state parks department asking about the pre-existing trails/tracks in the park area, as I wondered how we should handle mapping them and even if we should or not.

I have edited it, adding:
opening_date = 2021-07
check_date = 2021-05-30

The key for a pedestrian crossing is highway=crossing, *not* highway=traffic_signals; however, you may add crossing=traffic_signals if it is a signalised crosswalk.

I will correct those at the intersection of Main Street and Jefferson Avenue in downtown Peoria as an example.

I *do* hope that all of these recent tags ref=I 80 Alt are signed (which I think would be strange). If they are *not* signed and it's only *on paper* then the key should be changed to unsigned_ref.

Did you correct them or do I need to do that?

I don't know if there is an actual rule about this, but generally don't add name= tags to bridges unless that bridge actually has an official, marked name. This is cluttering up the map with too much text labeling, for one thing.
Personally, I also don't normally add man_made = bridge UNLESS it is a rather wide bridge, typically carrying at least two "carriageways" or other highways or ramps on the one bridge structure. And in those cases, I also always try to remember to edit whatever passes underneath such a wide bridge and add covered=yes to the segments under the bridge.