Way : 927679766 - This road simply does not exist. You are not adding road geometry - you are making up phantom roads.
I have deleted it AGAIN !!

I noticed this too, and with no response , and the mapper doing nothing for 3 years, have added the heath tag back in and moved the boundary to where its looks correct.

Are you really sure the barrier wall has been removed here ? Mapillary (2019) still shows the wall here.
I had split the road prior to that, and added the barrier, and wonder why it has now been changed without citing any correct source.

Yes, I usually change the source to Streetmap or Bing after each section .... guess I must have missed one !

No problem if you know this has had the vehicular rights extinguished, and we all know that no vehicles signs are not always an accurate reflection of the legal status.
I rode this back in the 80's and it still appears on the OS map as having "other rights of public access" (generally given to UCRs), so I changed it.
Of course if you are local and I have made a mistake, thanks for changing it back. Lanes are stopped up, and no longer living in the area, I don't catch them all.

I remember this lane (assuming its the one in the changeset you are referring to) - heading W>E after the ford, it does turn into a rough climb.
The no bicycle tag was put in by a previous mapper, and I would argue is wrong. I also note that as I changed the highway tag to track, it would mean a 4x4 vehicle could drive it. I note that another mapper has changed to path, so I have to assume its now no longer physically accessible by 4x4 - I will check next time I'm down that way and revert to track if the 4x4 gang still use it.

Agreed with the rationale, that bicycles and walkers shud be ok on UCRs. I'm travelling now but will take a look when back on PC.
It's possible the tag was already on there, as it's not a tag I wud normally add myself. Cheers.

way/71143021 -I very much doubt this entire road is a bridge, so have removed the tag. If you are trying to say something about it, please re-tag accordingly. Cheers.

way/151682699 was one I noted, there may be others.

Quote from the Wiki " For rivers, create an area feature for each section (not too long) of the river and tag it as a river area (using natural=water+water=river or waterway=riverbank)."
So why change my original tagging Nothing wrong with it ?

Thank you for your very polite response - but the fact remains that even from only aerial images, the proximity to the bldgs and the parked cars should have put some doubt into the fact that this was not a road. Please share this with all Grab mappers and be more careful in the future.
Rgds. Russ

Way: 927152074 & 927152075
mudigonda_1 .... what the heck are you doing ?
At the Mae Rim PTT, you have drawn these ways without checking properly. It might look like a road in your efforts to flood the map with anything you can find, but these are bad edits.
...971 goes through a gate, has a barrier to stop cars and motorcycles, as it then runs across a pedestrian shopping area.
...075 is the pedestrian area, where people walk safely behind steel bars. Its a pedestrian pavement !!
But yet you chose to add as a road, and connect it to the highway. Can't you see this from aerial images ?
I wish you would check local photos and stop wrecking the CM map with junk data.
You can imagine my concern when I passed the PTT in a pickup truck, and my GPS then directed me through a gap in the shops, and across the pedestrian area. For a Grab vehicle to do this, the publicity would be terrible. Just how much more incorrect ways have you added ?
I have corrected your mistakes - please be more careful, or better still, stop mapping.

OK, sorry if a bit harsh- just all of us here getting fed up with unwarranted changes, primarily coming from mappers in India.
Cheers

Bienengasse- I surveyed this road some time ago, realised it was no longer unclassified, as it now carried a provincial rural road sign. So in line with with our Thai wiki guidance, changed it to a tertiary road.
So why the hell do you see fit to change it back without even having the courtesy to contact me to discuss. I don't recognise you as a regular Thai contributor .. have you been down this road recently ?
I have reverted it back - please read our local Wiki first before just changing things to suit your ideas.
Russ.

OK, but please learn to respect existing work. This is not the first time I have commented on your changes of existing tags.

I sometimes wonder how inexperienced the Grab mappers are ... I added & tagged this way as a primary link - its a one way U turn as well as providing access to the market.
Why on earth do you think its a parking aisle ??? It links two carriageways of Hwy 12, making it a trunk link ... read the wiki osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway on how to map.
I have been mapping a lot longer than you, so when u see a way added by an experienced mapper, please have the courtesy to message him first before just changing to suit your misguided beliefs.
Naturally I have reverted it.
Russ.

I wish you would stop tagging these U-turns as residential roads - more experienced mappers than you have drawn them in as Primary links, so kindly stop messing up existing work.
Im changing them all back as & when i find them.

Thanks for fixing it.

Kulmay - Node: 2586776307 - you have tagged this as barrier=yes.
That's a bit vague as it will stop routing along this tertiary road. I have added access=yes for now as I cant see anything that will stop the traffic - please can you review your edit and explain what sort of barrier it is, and if it actually prevents passage ?
Russ.

No problem with any of the above (and after surveying said road on Thursday, it truly didn't deserve tert status). But it also had no signs or mileposts, which I guess is the point I'm trying to make.
Thailand's roads are continually improving so I never have a problem when an upgrade is justified, and I certainly applaud changing the mass of Facebook residential roads that traverse the rice paddies, into tracks.
Russ.