I have deleted this untagged way.

This city node is not needed since it already exists here: node/255066773

I have deleted this duplicate node.

What is this untagged way?

Changset comment correction: "3rd District" should be "4th District"

I think this error occurred is because M Lhuillier is not included in the Name Suggestion Index used by iD while Cebuana Lhuillier is included. Also, the Name Suggestion Index lists "m lhuillier" as a "match" for Cebuana Lhuillier leading to incorrect edits.

https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/d64dcdcc0cc0d38cd323f1080b4b28761ba79d6e/brands/shop/pawnbroker.json#L15

Based on the following video, your tagging of the status of CALAX is too optimistic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WvTA9gFmis

The motorway is still under construction and is not yet a highway=motorway + access=no.

Interesting. It seems you did this no-op changeset in order to try and fix the rendering issue. Or were you trying to fix some other issue?

Pasay City still exists. I think the deletion is accidental. I have reverted the deletion here: changeset/74190303

I had a private chat with Mikko regarding this and I can confirm that Grab's system does not detect the existing no-u-turn restriction. I have told Mikko to escalate this with Grab because they need to support ways-as-via turn restrictions if they really want to do proper routing using OSM.

I have a feeling that Grab's backend routing engine might not support turn restrictions with one or more ways in 'via' roles (as opposed to just a single node for the 'via'). This is a really common problem in many routing engines and quite complex to support.

For example, OSRM had this issue raised in 2012 and only solved in 2017: https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/2681

Mikko, can you confirm if Grab's routing engine supports the u-turn restriction that is already mapped in OSM here?

@GOwin, just to clarify, I think your first comment is not intended for this changeset (because nothing was deleted here)? So the second comment is the correct feedback?

I think the intention is that this is a no-U-turn restriction, but given that the editor being used is iD, the built-in turn restriction editor in iD does not have a good support for properly modeling the proper no-U-turn restriction.

In any case, this no-left-turn restriction is an okay (but not ideal) alternative because it will still properly prevent u-turns in routing software/engines.

@GOwin, the road segment wasn't deleted in this changeset. The mapper did actually split the road, although the place where the splitting happened is kinda weird. I'll ask Mikko about this changeset.

@GOwin, I think you are misinterpreting the changes here. Nothing was deleted. Detroit and Don Alfredo were simply split at their common intersection.

Thanks, Monica! 😊

Ouch. I agree. SLEX is not a tunnel.

This changeset has been reverted. The user has the habit of doing fantasy edits.

IIRC, "papercut" refers to "death by a thousand (paper) cuts". Basically, we tag these as minor errors on the map that nobody really bothers to fix. We (OSM PH) have since expanded this concept to flag things that need urgent/systematic fixing.

I did not refer to any imagery and did not need to. I merely fixed changeset/70236153 to preserve data history. There should not be any (substantial) change in the geometry that was introduced by changeset/70236153.

This changeset has been reverted. This user has the habit of doing fantasy edits.