Most the roads drawn in the village by VLD003 were not connected at the intersecting nodes. I have corrected but be careful next time.

I have checked my GPS tracks, and the two times crossing in here, it was ENTERING Laos. Both traces indicate I did not use the winding section to change, which would support your comment about it being reversed (and incorrect).
Would you like to change, or shall I ?
Rgds.

Andy (DWG) - OK, lets leave it for now. I will do some random checks on his previous work, but given a revert can sometime introduce more errors (and I see segments of the Superhighway have been since modified again by other mappers) it is probably easier to accept the 42 edits, and I will make individual changes if necessary. Rgds, Russ.

Thank you for your politeness and positive approach.

I have gone back and corrected that area, but can I explain another error you caused .. when you just deleted the road, you destroyed the actual connection of the U-turn to the Dual carriageway. To any GPS it would not use the U-turn as it does not see a connection. You should have re-joined the nodes (which are shown in Potlatch 2 by a red circle over the noded in question).
As I said, please take some time to read about editing OSM before making important changes on major highways.
Its all fixed here now, for u.
Russ

Hi Akram, Thanks for revising the way, but please understand that at OSM, we simply do not assume that roads connect when we can't see the connection.
Yes, its a judgement call always, but in a case like this, it would be better to draw half the road where you can see the asphalt, and leave a "fixme" tag, for local mappers to review and visit the area if required.
The very words you used ... "maintaining connectivity" imply you feel all roads have to connect somewhere, which is not the case.
Rgds, Russ

Way: 642404272
Akram - you have added this as a residential road. Its courtesy to the rest of the mappers to add a source tag as to where it came from.
To me it looks more like a small path, but no matter what it is, you did not connect the road to the footpath, using the same node. Do you understand the importance of this ?
Please take the time to learn more about OSM editing before working on important features like roads.

way/641423275
Dear Akram - can you explain why you have drawn a residential road straight through a load of trees, across a pavement, and connecting to a major dual carriageway?
You then go on to change a Secondary Link road (U-turn) into a residential road !
What the crap are you doing ? You have not been there, and your clearly imagining roads that don't exist.
If you are working for Grab as you claim, then how are the drivers going to feel trying to take a passenger into the bushes, due to your careless mapping efforts.
PLEASE STOP editing immediately until you have learned more about OSM. I'm asking for all of your edits to be reverted as I don't know what other damage you have done.
Russ.

way/550922353 :
Zvone, you have created this track and linked it into a bridge !!
Do you not think it either runs under the bridge, or turns left to connect on level ground.
As usual, I'll correct for you.

Way: 455252468
Dear Zvone,
I see you have changed the classification from Service to unclassified. For some reason you have also removed the unpaved tag. These canal roads are frequently gravel, and while the change of status is subjective, can you provide evidence of why you now this it is NOT unpaved ?

way/551158115 - This is a curious addition, Zvone.
I presume you noticed that there is an airport runway adjacent to this residential road. Did that not make you think that just maybe, there wasn't a road there, and that if you checked other aerials, you may have deduced this was a temporary fair being held on the disused runway ... No ?
Just bang it in. Leave it for us to sort out.
I have since deleted it.

way/538858336 - This is NOT residential... Yes, the west end might be, but the eastern section runs through fields, and is clearly unpaved.
https://i.postimg.cc/x8L8ZHDD/20181026-104559.jpg
Please make that little bit of extra effort to split the ways and tag each section accordingly, which might at least prevent routing engines from using the way.
As per usual, I'll fix it for you.

I have fixed this now, so don't fret.

way/538104523 - Hi Alexandra Teixeira... I'm reaching out to you too ... just wondering why when you added this rather important Link road/U turn on the 103, that you ignored the other one next to it, which is equally as important.
In fact, while you were there, you say you are keen to improve the map, so is there any reason why you didn't draw the bridges on the 103, where your link road passed under. Or delete the residential road that clearly can't connect to a bridge in mid-air. Or just make an attempt the draw the 103 along its correct lines.
It's just such a half arsed job, Im afraid, but dont worry .. the Thai mappers are working overtime to fix the Facebook cavalier mapping.

Ways 538867897 & 98 :
Dear Yoko, as per your profile comment, Im "reaching out to you" and asking what on earth possessed you to tag this as a residential road, and paved by default. Those rooftops you see are field shelters for the workers in the rice paddies, and the building at the south end is a garage.
Here is a photo taken about 200 mts in, travelling North;
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Rw6YK6U4oe4Vucn67
and here in another 200 mts;
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ntTRzvTSd6wrh28J8
Does this look like you can drive your family Ford Focus down here ?
There is not a house nearby.
Your edits have completely bolloxed our navigation in Thailand, and one year on, these "residential roads through the fields" are still uncorrected.
Why don't you man-up, admit your mistakes, and go back and correct every one of your edits like this, instead of dropping it in the laps of us local mappers to sort our your crap imports.
Russ McD.

way/535692685 : This way has been drawn following the river in many places. As it was traced rather than taken from a GPS log, can you be sure this is the actual route ? If I rode my trail bike along your track, can you assure me I would not drown ?
It would also have been a real nice gesture to trace relevant parts of the river in, (which I have now done) to show this could be a very wet passage.
Any comment ?

way/539731274 is a good example of the poor tagging by a member of the Facebook team:
At the south end, arguably this is a gravel surface, then it deteriorates, until almost disappearing across fields in the mid -section. Later imagery shows it has now been ploughed over, and a detour MIGHT just get you through, but not in a car.
This is our Facebook legacy - roads like this all over Thailand that have not been revised, and navigation software will gladly send you down this in a car, only to end up in a muddy field.
This is an agricultural area and while the beginnings of the roads might look OK, please take the time to correctly show the mid-sections as tracks, hopefully averting real life navigational errors.
The changeset is described as "changed classification for consistency" ... hell, does that mean all tracks in this area have been changed to roads "for consistency" !!!

You have to be careful in Thailand, as a lot of roads in a grey colour are gravel. Of course we use that specific tag if we have visually surveyed them, but if in any doubt, then it gets unpaved.
Splitting roads where the surface changes is great, as even if you think some of it is paved, then the addition of the unpaved (or dirt) tag to sections that clearly are not, usually is enough to stop navigation engines using it.

way/475131865 was added as the only residential road in the village, and correctly located ... very good. But why did you make no attempt to correct the poor alignment of the ลป.4001 it connects to, while this area had the focus of your attention.
The GPS history and better imagery since it was first plotted, allow these earlier roads to be improved. Local mappers do this as it makes no sense to have a beautifully plotted village, when the main road through it runs off its correct position ?
I have fixed it now.

way/475131860 tagged as an unclassified road, but clearly serves just agricultural fields and has a dirt surface. It should be unpaved. the connecting road Nort was subsequently tagged unpaved by FB, so why not this one too ?
I have changed both to track as they should be.