Then there is not use for highway=busway, because highway=busway and highway=service + access=no + bus=designated mean the exact same thing. Since it seams to be down to preference (since they mean the exact same thing with not distinction between the two) it is preferable that highway=busway be used in Miami.

it makes no sense to use both tagging's in a since town/city, use either all busways use highway=busway or all of them use highway=service + access=no + bus=designated . if you want to use highway=service + access=no + bus=designated then you should update ways such as way/42507785 to use that tagging . consistency in tagging within a region matters allot. when tagging is consistent, new contributors can figure out what the best ways to map features by just looking at what has already been fully mapped. it also helps ensure that different areas with different customs and preferences remain consistently well mapped (both tagging and geometry) by following standards set by the local community.

so again please remove the highway=service + access=no + bus=designated on this and other way or remove the highway=busway on other ways in Miami Dade county and replace it with your preferred tagging. there is also the fact that highway=busway is the what the community uses since the iD tagging schema has that as the tagging added to a way if added as a "busway" and the ways modified in this commit are busways without a shadow of a doubt.

Again I would really like to know when you made those tagging changes as per the above comment I left.

what is the source for this edit,, I see nothing that would imply that bikes aren't allowed on these ways.

as mentioned above there doesn't seem to be any signage prohibiting bikes from using these ways so what is the source for these edits. also this uses a non standard tag that implies yes, if it isnt specified whether or not a certain for of transportation has access to a footpath it is assumed to be the default for the way, which in the case of sidewalks is yes. so please stop using this non standard tagging, the OSM community has agreed upon and uses certain tags for certain purposes for a reason, please stop using this non standard tag and respond as to what the source for this is.

please respond

Question, can you check your data and see if ways
way/1149564737
way/1149564718
way/1149564715
Along with all other ways tagged to be under construction linked to the above mentioned ways have also opened since this is one big construction site and I doubt that one would open but not the others since they all link to each other.

I agree with Joseph R P here, I went through that Reddit post, it has no links to official FDOT pages, news articles or anything, I google what I think is every possible combination of terms to find this from the post and found nothing, I spent hours on that. It could be possible I missed it, but I highly doubt that. Bvonter23 since you obviously want this project to happen, contact your local and state officials and ask them to make this happen, until construction actually starts on something highway=construction is not appropriate. As I said in the post above OSM is a map of the real world and what we want doesn’t really matter unless it is being built in the real world. Again highway=construction is only for features actually being built, so until something is actually being built it doesn’t belong on OSM.
Hope you have a good day.

Please respond
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145539922

What’s the source for this, I don’t see any signs prohibiting bikes in these ways. Also “ not specified” is a nonstandard tag, use something else.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146342554

What’s the source for this, I don’t see any signs prohibiting bikes in these ways.

This is all I’m going to post here on this matter, have a good day.

I’m sorry but I didn’t quite understand the above comment, did you put the change set on Reddit or a link to sources, because if it’s the scone option(link to sources for this commit) please physically link it in the comments here(the post).
I asked for sources because I didn’t see construction on areal imagery and couldn’t find and FDOT or any other official sources mentioning a project here being under way or even planned so I was suspicious that this was vandalism due to mapping of imaginary/wanted features. It didn’t help that you had in the past (at the time, you’ve continued this behavior since looking at your commits) tried to add fictitious bridges in Vietnam (along with other such features. So due to passed behavior and no sources to be found the edits in this commit were removed.

A point here, highway=construction is meant for features that are in the process of being built. That is why the ways added were removed, because it seems there aren’t any such ways being built (or even planned, which in that case would be miss tagging because there is specific tagging for planned features). highway=construction does not apply to features any one individual wants, OSM is a map of the real world as it exists, not what one may want it to be, if you want a change to the highway petition the Florida government to make that change, if that petition is accepted, planned, announced and work starts then it can be mapped as highway=construction on OSM because it would then be real.

Then wouldn’t something like toll:sunpass=yes or toll:sunpass=designated be more appropriate?

Also, shouldn’t the through lanes have hov=designated on them?

What is the source for the new name for “State Road 821 Access Road”?

Wrong comment, it was supposed to be:

Updated alignment of highway link such that the turn lane tagging is better represented as it is

Why did you delete that track, it seems to be there on the bing imagery
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145718769

Again I would really like to know when you made those tagging changes as per the above comment I left.

Question, why are there so many vertex deletions along the coast lines?

Can you please respond, I would really like if you could respond about the second point in the above comment.