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.

way/534668627 is hardly residential. Its a farm track through fields and woods. And even if VLD009 really believed it was residential, then at the very least, give it an unpaved tag to stop regular traffic using it.
Fixed now.

way/557090798 has been drawn as a residential road... clearly at the North end, it could serve the village, but the rest of it is an agricultural track serving the fields. Unfortunately, when travelling north on the ชม.4016, navigation software see this as a viable short cut, putting your family saloon in a muddy field.
I have changed it to a track from the village southwards.

Way: 556878914 is clearly unpaved but yet this tag was not used. Fixed now.

Way: 556071150 has been added correctly as a track, but no attempt has been made to connect this orphan road to the rest of the network, despite connections to the East being clearly visible.

Way: 615044284 - This has been drawn recently, as a residential road ... but yet it goes through the forecourt of a PTT gas station, crosses a pedestrian area, then along the path to the toilets, exits through a gap in a wall, and disappears into trees. What justification is there for this ?

Noted, I'll keep an eye out for other similar occurrences. Thanks for the reply.

Way: 3492 (519453281) - this bridge had been drawn over the canal. But you did not break, or remove the underlying road. Its bad mapping - why ?
(I have since fixed).

Just wondering why all the building's have been drawn twice, one on top of the other ... and you say "dont change" !

If it keeps u happy, done.

Mike,
Noted and tags removed, along with a few other ways similarly tagged.
However, this mistake is easily made by users of Potlatch2 as the "access=designated" tag is offered as a choice on the drop down. Unless you had read the Wiki first, you would have no idea it was incorrect.
Perhaps if you have some influence in the UK OSM community, you could help by getting it removed.
Best rgds, Russ.

On the aerials, take a look at the colour, the contrast to the asphalt at either end, the lack of defined edge, the absence of white lines... why I should I not come to an "unpaved" conclusion... unless of course you are looking at Google Maps again.
I do my best from the info I'm allowed to use and no, I have not been down this actual street.
Any why all the sudden interest in checking my edits, when we have thousands of very incorrect AI imports to verify first ?

My mistake, got called away during mapping. Connected with temp links until I can GPS properly.
It does carry on Northwards, but is not completely open yet so no GPS trace and I'm not walking 12 km in this heat ! lol

I rode down the 1184 last week and a lot of the Lampang rural roads have new signs and are freshly tarred. Did I rid down this Soi ?
Well, No I didnt, I used the highways website to check the accuracy.
Sometimes when plotting, you need to make certain assumptions, and in this case I just assumed that the aerials were old and the Soi was not tarred to RR standard, soon it would be.
Ill check it out again next time I'm there.

Firstly, Yes. I rode through there about three weeks ago and stopped at the PTT. There is massive construction going at the moment, and there were routing issues on the GPS which made me give it my attention when I got home.

From memory, it has not been plotted well with lots of tertiary tags on what looked like unclassified roads, so I cleaned things up.

The new road I chose to change to a fixme (not delete)
- had no source tag or note
- should have been a primary if it was the 202
- had 202 as a ref, when bypasses now usually carry a different number
- did not connect back to the 202
- did not appear on http://roadnet.doh.go.th/
- did not show on any of the aerials we are allowed to use

All of this made me think it was erroneously put in, hence my actions, which of course now you have looked in the latest Google satellite view, shows I was wrong. I see even Google does not have it on its map yet had I have checked there.

And are we allowed to use Google maps and street view now ?

Using a fixme invited further comment but I made the decision to untag as a highway until this came.

I have given up contacting mappers I don't know, about mistakes. They rarely answer and those that do are usually just rude at having their work criticised.

I'll answer the other questions in the forum and retag this as a highway.

Thanks Mike,
Yes, my mistake - the Potlatch hint was a bit confusing and after reading the Wiki, have changed it to Private as you suggest.
Rgds.

Noted.. I was using that piece of shit Maps.me that offers only a limited range of tags. Nothing for builders merchant, and OK the Garden centre does have the word Ramsey in from of it ... I'll add it. I get round to amending these edits once back home on the PC, which I will do today. As a community, its time we outlawed edits from this App ! Rgds, Russ.

Hwy 12 west of here is NOT a dual carraigeway ... it may have painted islands in areas, but OSM convention dictates we draw as a single carraigeway.
Also, the where the 2372 and 2278 one way sections cross the 12, the western lanes are NOT connected to the rest of the road, making routing impossible ... very poor work.