You are right. I corrected it to field. Seems it was a copy/paste error. Sorry for that...
Stay healthy, everyone...

Good afternoon,
thanks for your comments, however I can not comment on the layer problem, as you did not provide # of ways.
Instead of the cloudy bing aerial imagery, in this area I used mapbox aerial imagery, which is extremely high quality, and usually I only tag a bridge when it is clearly visible.
Thanks in advance for providing numbers.
Concerning the way #515867542, all I can say is that it had been created wrongly as secondary road, and that from aerial imagery it seemed to me that the class had at least to go down by one (from secondary to tertiary). If you have local knowledge that allows you to attribute to running within a residential area only, fine with that.
This is what we call iterative optimization. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with that, especially because classification of roads can never be done based on aerial mapping alone. What finally counts is someone on the spot who can provide official data and/or local knowledge.
Best and happy mapping

Hello ravalim,
thanks for your comments. I have reviewed the edits and agree with you. I have changed the attributes.
Best regards.

Korrektur: eing*e*tragene

Hallo und danke für den Kommentar.
Öhm... die Ladesäule habe ich im Vorbeifahren gesehen, es scheint mir aber, dass ich beim Editieren die schon eingetragene übersehen habe... d.h. sie könnte wieder weg.
Meiner Erinnerung nach steht sie aber tatsächlich ein bißchen weiter vorne als die bereits eingatragene...

Hello,
Thanks for commenting.
I have similar remarks as with the other changeset you commented:
- ways 132895263 and 132895265 were created by Serpico as unclassified, only extended by me;
- way/702339478 and 702339479 seem to have been created by you, I do not see my name in the edit history. Maybe because of way splitting?
As I normally do not change way classification unless I see residentials running cross-country, it might make sense to check with the users who created them first, to discuss attributes.
Best

Good afternoon,
Thanks for your comment.
In general I have no problems having way attributes changed, as my edits are based on aerial imagery.
Concerning some of the ways listed by you I am unable to comment, because I did not classify them:
- way/560932429 has never been touched by me, it was created by dennisramadhan, as you can see from the history;
- Ways 310746599 was created by calle_212 as unclassified, I only extended it;
- way/560932427 was created by dennisramadhan as unclassified, I only extended it;
- Ways 310745539 and 310746522 were created by calle_212 and never touched by me;
- way/560867636 was created by armasari as unclassified, I only extended it;
- way/560867634 was created by armasari and never touched by me.

I normally do not change way classification unless I see residentials running cross-country. I did not check all the other ways, but apparently, when asking about attributes, you might better ask the users who created them, see above.

Concerning way/667307400, which is the only one in the above list that I created, no problem having it as tertiary.
Best

Good morning,
thanks for your comment.
As you can see from the OSM wiki highway=residential ,
the tag residential should not be used for roads connecting small settlements.
Why do you think that the residential tag is more appropriate? Have you locally seen any traffic calming feature or explicit speed limit sign? Then indeed one should tag residential.
Best regards

Good evening,
thanks for your comment. Here´s a short background information.
The waterways were created a few months ago by another user, who appears to have used some robot software. When checking these waterways with keepright.at,
I found hundreds of errors of the type "intersections without junctions". Please see also https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=-7.5851&lon=108.9270 for a bigger picture.
When loading into the editor, I saw that the "rivers" in this region not only
consist of many short snippets, which is itself not a problem, but that these
snippets are often not connected. This not only applies to the waterways but
also to many roads. As a result, no routing program can use these roads, although everything is superficially fine.
I wonder whether you also checked this...? The map has not been by any means clean of errors before I started working on it - several rivers have been created twice, and the bits and pieces
cross each other, which is a big mess.
I saw this and decided to try some clean-up, at least in some regions.
The new conflicts see to stem from that connecting snippets sometimes creates
duplicate connection points, which are not well visible in either Potlatch or
iD. I´ll try to keep an eye on that but it´s nasty because one has to delete
points.
Result: it is always a good idea to use more than one checking tool and base
the overall judgment on the *total* number of map errors - does it go down or up?
Let´s try together for the best result.
Best regards

Thanks for your answer, I will focus on other areas lying more west for a while. I am not a local mapper but am interested in the area thanks to my longest-time friend. Happy mapping to you all.

Dear Riyadi,
mapping all Java roads is indeed a huge task, machine learning can probably help a lot. Wish you good luck.
As you can easily find out using e.g. hdyc.neis-one.org or yosmhm.neis-one.org, I have been busy for several months not only in the region of this changeset but also beyond, around and east of Gajah Mungkur. I guess machine learning is not (yet) clever enough to fit its outcome seamlessly into existing datasets. Shifting the center of mapping activity to avoid conflicts or double mapping is fine for me, as long as I know more precisely which area you are targeting, e.g. in terms of lat/lon. Thanks for feedback on this point.

Further, please note that most of my changesets do not only include roads but also landuse, mosques, sports pitches etc. I guess you are not going to vandalize what´s already there. OSM is a collaborative project where all users are treated on equal footing and only data quality decides what stays in the map, not the method of generation.

Happy mapping,
pittrichimica

Ok, das war ein Dummyknoten zum Übertragen von Adressdaten auf einen anderen POI. Ist aus Versehen stehengeblieben. Habs gelöscht, danke.

Hallo,
welche Hausnummer meinst Du?
Ich habe alle von mir eingetragenen Adressen angeklickt, und alle hatten Hausnummern ungleich Null. Danke für Rückmeldung, welchen POI Du meinst...

Hallo, als ich im April das letzte Mal vorbeikam, stand es noch. was die neuere Entwicklung angeht, sind die lokalen Mapper gefragt, da ich nicht mehr in S wohne.

I agree. Sorry for replying in English, my Spanish is rather poor. Probably it should even be highway=unclassified (I am aware that different OSM communities in Europe have different "traditions" - note that routing algorithms will avoid using residentials for routing unless the destination lies there).

Danke. Ich kann selber erst Anfang August wieder vor Ort sein. Hätte nicht gedacht, dass die Luftbilder so uralt sind.

Thanks Jan and sorry for the late reply. I adapted the tag. Examples are always easier than a synopsis...

Hi Jan,
yes, that´s right. As this is a rather special case, I tried to figure out how to tag it using the wiki page. If you find an error, thanks for any tip how to improve...
Tanja

Change was introduced because the previous landuse=forest tag seemed completely inappropriate to me, given the limited number of trees on this area. I agree that the tree_row tag is even better, thanks for the hints.

Oops, copy&paste error from simultaneous tagging of minibiebs and hydrants. Corrections done, thanks for spotting.