This changeset has been reverted in changeset/33988029. changeset/33988029

Please don't trust Bing & Tiger 100% for adding roads. Here, you added back in West 3rd Street going right in the middle of a brand new baseball stadium that had already been added into OSM. That should have sent up red flags instantly that these roads had a very good chance that they didn't exist anymore. The stadium was built after Bing was last updated in this area. The stadium build between 2013 & 2014, meanwhile Bing Imagery is from early 2011 here in the Charlotte area.

Waited over 8 days for a response back from Matt1993, got nothing here. Meanwhile he's still been editing in OSM during the time between the comments left here, so he's had time to do leave a comment here...... Reverted back to primary in changeset/33947278. changeset/33947278

Just so you know, with lane counts, when you add the :backward & :forward tags, that's based off the direction the way itself is going, not the cardinal directions. For example, way/11691827, when you added the lanes:* tags to it in this changeset, you added them in a way that indicates that going NB on the bridge is 2 lanes, and SB 1 lane instead of the opposite. Since that way is going North to South, it should be lanes:forward=2 & lanes:backward=1. See: lanes=*?uselang=en-US#Lanes_in_different_directions

The ways you added the 'US 22' ref to are NOT part of US-22. This has been reverted.

This is not part of I-70. I-70 is on the 'ramp' to the right.

This is not part of US-22.

This is not part of US-22.

This is not part of US-22.

This is not part of US-22.

This is not part of US-22.

We could ask somebody in the DWG to do the revert, because of being a neutral party.

iD doesn't seem to care about those 'new' tags and doesn't alert a user to them. So, instead of calling it vandalism, maybe go over to the iD GitHub page and report a bug about this? https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD

You ever think that the lane tagging problem could be caused by ID not alerting the user to tags being merged/changed?

When doing a mass delete, can you please add a changeset comment? Helps local mappers know what exactly you're trying to do in the changeset. ;) osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Matt, are you not even getting the emails when comments are left on your changesets? Anyways, seriously, even if you have 12 hour work days, you're finding time to edit OSM. Can't you spare one minute of that editing time to respond to comments left for you? This is a 'community' project, and you need to talk with your fellow mappers when possible problems arise. Anyways, I'm trying to find out if you saw shields for this 'NY 5 Alternate'. I don't want to revert a legit route if it was indeed posted since the last time I was in that area a few years ago. So, please, get back to me on this.

Also, when tagging as a 'motorway', you break bicycle routing unless explicit tags are added to allow them. Are there any signs on the ramps saying that bicycle's and pedestrians are 'prohibited'? I doubt it. This segment should still be primary, nothing higher as I-99 is the 'true' motorway in this area for N/S traffic.

Can you please explain why you think this small interchange along US-220 Alternate should be tagged as a motorway? osm.org/#map=15/40.9467/-77.7955 As I mentioned when I downgraded it back to a 'primary' less than a month ago ( changeset/33230103 ) after your previous upgrade here, a "single interchange doesn't = motorway". So, can you explain why you think this would be one? Not even PennDOT considers this area to be a 'motorway'.

So, Paul, with the "if it's not interstate standard, it's likely not a motorway", are you going to go edit in NYC and change the 'non Interstate standard' segments on some of the Interstates that were grandfather in with I-# at the start of the system? Or maybe change the 'Super-2' segment of I-93 where the 'Old Man of the Mountain' was down to Trunk? Or how about PA I-376 Business Loop (relation/1014596) which is a 'motorway' for all but three small 'at-grade' intersections in the middle which between them, are tagged as trunk, while everything else is motorway. Would you come into the Pittsburgh area and 'downgrade' it? If you did, I'd fight you tooth and nail over any downgrade along I-376 Business. Locals should hold a little more sway than people from out-of-state when it comes to this stuff. Anyways, WA-500 looks almost exactly like PA I-376 Business Loop, and I support the way it's tagged at this given moment, especially since some locals say there are 'Freeway Entrance' signs at some of the onramps along it.

It happened in the past. I guess they might have fixed that bug with their router.