Hi,

this import is of very bad quality as the new ways are not connected with the existing road network. See all the errors in the OSM routing view: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-12.77921&lat=9.98443&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1 . Can you please fix the connectivity issues?
thanks

ratrun

Hi,

your new way way/1291253135 needs to be split into separate segments as it is overlapping and unconnected with the existing road network. Please note that OSM is not the correct place to upload individual tour suggestions, which seems to be the case for me given from the assigned name of the way. I also would ask to provide the source for your edit.
Thank you!

I saw that you removed all those ways. Thank you for that. But please do not create such superfluous bogus temporary changes in the future. Thank you!

Hi,

your edits here are of very poor quality. You are adding footways without any consideration on connectivity to the existing ways. This generates lots of error on the OSMI routing view. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=35.27465&lat=37.04146&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cislands%2Cislands_car%2Cislands_bicycle%2Cislands_all%2Csnap_points%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1%2Cunconnected_open_ends_2%2Cunconnected_open_ends_3%2Cunconnected_open_ends_4%2Cunconnected_open_ends_5%2Cunconnected_open_ends_6

Why don't you tag on to the existing roads if there are sidewalks or not?

Hi and welcome to OSM!

Please note that these new cycle ways need to be connected to the existing road network and shall not overlap. Your edits are of pretty low quality. Could you please improve that?

thank you ratrun

Hi,
is there a special reason that you didn't tag the imported roads as highways? Or did you just forget?

It looks as if you only checked osmcha and sow that nodes were deleted. But the turning circle was duplicated before and I only merged the two of them. So I really didn't remove anything.

Hi Hannah,
thanks for your explanation. Now that you pointed me on it I could spot the cycle markings on the road surface via the Bing images. But you did duplicate the roads as explained above. Otherwise I wouldn't have spotted your changes. You can see it when you closely watch in JOSM by zooming in very closely. I would have now enough information that I could fix those mistakes from remote, but it would be better if you could to that as it seems that you know these locations.

Hello Hannah,

here is one example: Your duplicated new way is this one: way/1278694757 , but this road is already mapped here way/671789980#map=17/-37.82372/144.67432 . There are three problems with this approach: the road is duplicated, the cycleway tags are redundant as this cycleway is already explicitly mapped here: way/970925776#map=18/-37.82130/144.67459 and last the duplicated way is unconnected to the rest. Therefore errors are displayed on the OSM inspector routing view page, see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=144.76128&lat=-37.73940&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

thanks
ratrun

Hello,

please stop duplicating highways just for tagging cycling information where separate cycling infrastructure is already mapped. I'm going to remove those duplications soon.
thanks
ratrun

Please stop these low quality changes! The way classification is obviously wrong and the connectivity to the existing network is next to none existing!

Hi,
can you please explain the purpose of way/1266466625 ? It looks like you want to map some special parking facilities within a parking place. The tag highway=service is not the correct tag for this as the way is not connected to the rest of the road network. I'm not an expert in parking lot mapping, but according to amenity=parking it looks like using amenity=parking_space would be more appropriate in your case. Could you please change the tagging for this way in this direction?

Hi, you changed way/502811047 into highway=emergency_bay, which is a very unusual value for the highway tag. As ordinary routing engines do not handle this value you broke the routing for the ferry line. Please describe your motivation/source for this change because I would like to re-enable the routing. Thanks

As there was no response and this data obviously was fake I deleted it.

Hi,
can you please re-check the junction of way/569135948? There are multiple connectivity issues which OSMI routing view complains about and it is very hard to fix this properly from remote using satellite images only.

Hi!

your changes look very strange. I cannot believe that your changed tagging from waterway=stream to highway=secondary is correct. Can you please explain this change? What are your sources?

Hi,

I deleted way/1249258562#map=11/32.1151/-112.7755 because this way does not seem correct. It was not connected to the existing road network and did not make sense.

I partially reverted this changeset with changeset/147060146

This clearly seems to be a mistake. I think we should revert this

Hi, I only connected unconnected segments. The deletion of the segments you mentioned was done in changeset/146722280.