Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have reverted my edit.

Hi skquinn. There doesn’t appear to be any signage confirming the name, so I will remove the tag as advised. Thanks!

Sounds like a plan! I can make the change. Thanks!

Yes that makes sense to me. Perhaps we can add ref=180 to way/342934220, and then remove 180 from both ref:forward and ref:backward (deleting ref:forward tag completely). Thoughts?

Hi mikkolukas,

What do you think about re-adding ref=180;O1 to way/342934220? This way users will understand which ref networks the road belongs to, as well as the intended direction of travel for each ref. Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
berms

Hi Hjart,

Thanks for also looking at this changeset. Both SDFE and Mapillary confirm this is a dual carriageway, so you are correct that they should have oneway tags.

I was going to come back to this area and add the oneway tags to (way/678728609), (way/657421860), (way/657421859), (way/657421858), but I just haven’t had a chance to yet. I will add them now.

Hjart,

Thanks for the insight. This makes sense.

Hi Hjart,

Thanks for the recommendation on the changeset comments.

I think we could simplify this junction while still maintaining functionality. What if I edit the members/roles in relation/9292138 (relation/9292138) as such: from (way/117459151), via (way/496188128), to (way/668141663). This would allow us to remove relation/9291740 (relation/9291740) and way/668141664 (way/668141664).

I also propose we remove relation/9292142 (relation/9292142), because according to Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.374774&lng=10.36890500000004&z=17&pKey=iRV92h0yVvqkQkcisvROFA&focus=photo, left turns appear to be legal. What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

Berms

Hi reflexz. Thank you for the message. I have removed the buildings using newer imagery from Esri.

Hi muralito, Mapillary does not show any signage indicating there is a left turn restriction. The existing turn restriction was preventing users from turning south onto Avenida Los Quilmes (way/324772495), which is why I removed the relation.

Great, look forward to hearing from you. Thanks!

Hi JKHougaard, I noticed you deleted the primary link (adjacent to way/527043298) that connected Århusvej to Lunbakkevej. SDFE aerial imagery and Mapillary both confirm there is a physical barrier separating the road. Can you please confirm if this link no longer exists?

Hi mikkolukas, I noticed you added a construction tag on way/301270578 based on your observation, and was wondering if you could confirm if the segment has reopened?

I will keep that in mind and leave more detailed changeset comments. Thanks!

Hello Hjart,

I was using the osm.wiki/Relation:restriction policy.

The way/509015727 was originally set as the “to” member of a no_left_turn relation when in fact the way functions as a straight-through connection, not left turn. This why I changed it to a “only_straight_on” relation. The restriction will still function the same.

Thanks,
berms

Hi JKHougaard, I added back the Bag Rådhuset segment for emergency vehicle access as advised. Thank you for the helpful feedback.

Hi, yes, the image I used was from Digital Globe from August 1, 2018.

Thank you for the message. I see where the issue was created which caused a gap and intersection between the wood multipolygon ways. I appreciate you making the correction.

I see that the wetland was accidentally collapsed. Thank you for making the correction and bringing it to my attention.

Hi mweper. Thank you for the helpful feedback! The reason I was using DG Premium is because the DG Premium Vintage grid data is actually showing as more recent imagery. I would agree with you that Bing imagery is too outdated in this area to use. Going forward, I’ll consider both DG imagery tile sets. Also, thank you for also suggesting the GPS traces that you provided! I’ll take a look.

Regards,
berms