Hi,

as you said the turn appears unconventional but it is legal as it is also needed for u-turns.

I don't really know why I would've added that restriction but that was 2 years ago so I don't really remeber.

I'll fix the turns.

Pozdrav,

to sam zaboravio obrisati jer na highway=secondary_link i slično ne bi trebala ići imena ulica

That's not how that works. The railway is single track which means there is ony one line that is main, others are sidings. It doesn't matter what tracks the trains are using because those track are still classified as sidings. If a train comes it uses the single main track and only if there are two trains, which is rare, then they move to the other track, but that doesn't make a main track it is still a siding

Hi, as for that way there are a few houses on it that I didn't add yet so I thought of it more as a residential street

Što je najbolje ne da su to zaboravili u promjenama u 90ima nego, je prije i bilo sa č. Na snimku iz 2011 na tablama piše Laščinska i tek se na ovim novim tablama piše Lašćinska. Tako da oni su to nešto namjerno radili. Stvarno bi bilo dobro raspitati se gradskoj upravi ili gradskoj četvrti i saznati što su oni mislili.

Dobro, ali čak i ako je pogrešno trebali bi se pridržavati "on-the-ground" načela pošto je naziv sa ć posvuda na znakovima i ljudima na kućama. Nema mi baš smisla da je na karti jedan naziv, a u stvarnosti drugi. Ne znam sad baš kako je ljudima na njihovim osobnim, ali trebali bi uklopiti naziv takav kakav je na terenu. I ja u Osijeku sam primjetio da se ulica zove Bartula Kašića, a ne Bartola iako je to opće prihvaćeno ime, ali mi nema smisla ići protiv toga ako se taj naziv službeno koristi.

E sad ja sam našao članak neki dan upravo o tim nazivima i ispada da podrijetlo imena Lašćina nije vezano sa npr. Medveščakom i Peščenicom (https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/file/102760). Tu je dosta lijepo objašnjeno i meni djeluje kao logični zaključak. Lašćina ovdje je upravo iznimka. Ja vjerujem da gradska uprava nije glupa i da su pravodovno ispravili naziv na meko ć kako bi i trebalo biti (i kako je i gramatički ispravno).

Pa očito nešto onda nevalja pošto se zove Lašćinska sa ć i tako piše na svim znakovima, svim stranicama i dokumentaciji, ZET-u, studentski dom itd.

Yes, I'll fix it.
Thanks for noticing!

Yes, that's what I originally wrote in the description but I misclicked and it replaced it with a previous changeset description.

I'm not sure about the format myself. When the ref tags were first added to OSM it was in the "R-II 5511" format and that's what I went with. The original decision (https://web.archive.org/web/20240716215656/https://vladars.rs/sr-SP-Cyrl/Vlada/Ministarstva/msv/Documents/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%BE%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9A%D1%83%20%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_406181601.pdf) format is like that on page 6 upper left table says "РЕГИОНАЛНИ ПУТЕВИ ПРВОГ РЕДА (Р-I)" which in latin is REGIONALNI PUTEVI PRVOG REDA (R-I)" and then lists plain numbers. The other pdf list them in the RII-5511 fomat that is more in line with the previous numers like 4-65 for example. Per on-the ground rule it's best to tag them like on road signs but that needs to be checked.
Cheers,
-Frank

There is also a more comprehensive Wikipedia list, but these also state the old road numbers and are primary sources.

Hi,

the roads in Republika Srpska have been given new numbers. I use these two as sources (https://web.archive.org/web/20240716215656/https://vladars.rs/sr-SP-Cyrl/Vlada/Ministarstva/msv/Documents/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%BE%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9A%D1%83%20%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_406181601.pdf) (https://www.putevirs.com/korisnik/dokumenti/Brojanje_vozila_u_RS_2019.pdf). Sorry for not adding them. I usually do multiple changesets in JOSM and forget to add sources after the first upload.

What do you mean. Both R-437
and R-438 are roads that exist the decision from 2014 mentions them as old road numbers (https://fbihvlada.gov.ba/bosanski/zakoni/2014/odluke/233.html), which were then restored whe the decision was reversed (https://www.fbihvlada.gov.ba/bosanski/zakoni/2018/odluke/131.htm). I also specificaly reverted the 2014 numbers and highway type back to since they're not main roads so I don't understand why you are reverting my changes

Also you merged signals for cars and pedestrians into one node which I'm not sure is the correct way. Pedestrian path that crosses the road should be tagged like node/2426926505 while road should have a traffic light node just before the pedestrian crossing

Pristavna to me at least seems better as unclassified because it is wide and has a connection to other roads which are service.

As for signals i missed that they were inactive and just assumed that they worked normally

Also most turbo roundabouts in the Netherlands (where they were invented) are drawn like that and it doesn't harm adding more correct info to the map

Hi,
thanks I specifically tried to map it by using most of the same ways as to not damage the bus routes which made i much more painfull, but I figured why not.

As for mapping there is wiki page (roundabout=turbo) which basically says to make it normal and add different lanes and change:lanes tag or to do it like here and add separate ways for lanes, which better represents the situation. I did it like this because I didnt mind the extra work and it more accurately shows the situation and also includes various kerbs that would be missing which means that lanes are technically different ways in OSM.

Also for Slovnaftska the residential tag didn't make sense because it is outside the residential zone which starts in Bajkalska.

Hi, the station is preserved but per wiki the railway:preserved tag is supposed to be used exclusively for railway lines (tracks) themselves to indicate whether they are run as a heritage line. As for nodes and other infrastructure I'm not sure what most appropriate tag should be.

Reverted, it is currently being demolished

changeset/161321126