That's a 'Kings Family Restaurant', correct? Or is it the 'Kings Hometown Grille' location I read about on the Wikipedia entry for Kings? Either way, it should have the 'full name' (depending on which it is), not just tagged as 'Kings'. Also might want to add their website link at the same time (especially if it's the 'Hometown Grille' location so people know it's one of their locations.

Just so you know, you don't have to put 'source=bing' on stuff like turning circles if you put it in the changeset comment. ;) Especially since you can see them in Bing and the 'imagery_used=Bing' tag is already on your changeset comment (added by iD automatically). ;) Just a way to keep down on tags when they aren't needed in some cases. :)

np man! (BTW, the only exception to the oneway=no rule is for motorway's & motorway_link's. They are always assumed as oneway=yes unless they are truly oneway=no or oneway=reversible. I-279's HOV lanes/ramps are the latter since you can only go in one direction at any one time.)

Just so you know, we don't need to add the 'oneway=no' tag in areas like this unless there are a mass amount of oneway roads there and the two-way are very occasional. Also, are you sure way/54459358 is one way for that bridge? way/54459358

And welcome to OSM!

Everything looks ok to me. Just missing what type of 'cuisine' they serve. ;) See: cuisine=*

No problem man. Glad we got this all sorted out now. If you have any other questions as to how to do something in OSM, don't hesitate to send me a PM on the subject. ;)

It's that or take a leap into the more experienced editor, JOSM. ;) If you decide to do that, if you have any questions about that editor, let me know via PM and I'll help ya out. ;)

Yes, the 'source=survey' is the proper thing to do. You add it to the changeset comments. However, I just noticed you can't properly add the 'source=survey' tag to changesets via iD via a quick changeset that I made. So, I recommend to at least add the text '(survey)' to the end of your changeset comment. Seems to be the only way possible with iD.

Don't get me started with Google and some of the idiots they have hired to approve/deny changes. Had so many fights with them it's crazy. Took over 2 months of fighting just to fix a simple interchange along PA-28 that had a small segment of 2-way road to access Rialto Street from the 31st Street Bridge after one of their mods changed it to one-way. They kept putting it back to one-way after I put it back to two-way, even though they had StreetView to verify it WAS two-way.. Shakes my head in disgust with them. That's why OSM is way better in that aspect, I know it to be right since I've used it and didn't have to deal with people from India who don't know the roads here. Too bad too many people don't use it yet for the data in their routers.

Anyways, I'm going to now remove the speed limit from the road. ( page on maxspeed: maxspeed=* ) Also, this proposal on how you tagged the road @ 5 MPH might be an interesting read, however, it was rejected: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Practical_maxspeed

As for the speed, please don't add incorrect speed limits into the database. The 'maxspeed' tag is for the 'posted' speed limit, not what the user thinks it should be. Heck, I know a road in Butler County that is posted @ 30 mph, but can't really go more than 15 mph in sections on it because of big holes in the gravel base, even though it's straight.

It may not be a 'navigational' road, but still, it's an unclassified road in the terms of OSM tagging. Just have to add the appropriate tags to it like surface, width, and other similar tags.

BTW, is it really posted @ 5 MPH? Looks like most of it would be posted @ 25 MPH to be honest.

Hate to say this, but this is clearly a 'highway=unclassified' road in OSM standards and not a 'highway=track'. highway=unclassified

I've changed it to that and added in a missing bridge on it.

Just curious, but does this road really have a 5 MPH sign posted on it?

Tweaked the tagging some more on it in changeset/31142299 after looking at Bing some more and your comment above. changeset/31142299

This should fix any problems for any routers that use OSM data.

Anyways, with the proper 'access' tags I applied to the road after restoring it, routing along it with software that uses OSM, there shouldn't be anymore problems with it.

If you look at Google Maps, you can clearly see that they have the road as a thru road. (See: https://goo.gl/maps/x8HbU ). You should report a bug with them to get it fixed on their end.

Well, I think that problem would be coming from people using Google Maps, not OSM. Here in OSM, the road didn't connect to anything else. Routers wouldn't put somebody on that if it wasn't the final destination.