I separated the two lines here to help you:
64.19396, -149.30145

Hi,
You accidentally duplicated a power line and its poles here. I don't have time to fix - can you do it?

I just learned through the tagging group that the newest imagery available from DigitalGlobe not only shows the new road but also strongly suggests that some of the old pavement is reverting to a track, as you indicated. It also appears the bridge over the small stream at the southern end is no longer present. If that's the case, then the track isn't even continuous and were could break it at the stream thereby solving the routing problem permanently. Do you happen to know the status of that bridge?

The tagging list has.asked the following questions: Can one still use the old section? Is it easily accessible from the new highway?

One person suggested using a tag proposed:highway =no that I've never sen before but which means the highway is destined for removal. Some routing algorithms pay attention to this tag but my guess is that yours wouldn't.

We're still working on it.

Hmmm. This situation presents an interesting problem. The old highway is, IMO, not really a track because, after all, it is paved. Yet one certainly doesn't want to be routed onto it.
You've hit upon a way to achieve that result but I wonder if OSM mappers shouldn't develop a better way to do it?
I will take it to the tagging list to get some insights.
Thanks for your effort in mapping Alaska, and for your reply.

Hi Will,
Can I ask why this old section of Richarson Hwy is tagged as a track? According to the Wiki, a track tag is for "Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses." The latest imagery from both ESRI and DigitalGlobe suggests that there is still good pavement on this stretch so I would have a hard time accepting that this is indeed a track unless the pavement has been removed since the relocation. I have not visited the area so cannot say for sure what the current situation on the ground is.

Thaks,
Dave

Why did you reduce the classification of the Richardson Hwy from primary to secondary? It is clearly an important road and it was primary originally.

I had always wondered what those signs meant, so you're not alone in misinterpreting them.

Johnny, the sign you used to set maxspeed here is actually a weight limit. In your Mapillary photo the 21 ตัน means 21 tons.

Definitely. It was purely accidental. Working with OSMAnd on a phone can be tricky for a person with big fingers. I'm at a loss to explain just how it happened but I'll fix it pronto.

Source should be ESRI World

According to the Wiki, the Parks Hwy certainly meets the conditions needed to class it as highway=trunk.

What is your reasoning to change the class of this section of the Parks Highway from trunk to primary? Nothing has changed on the physical highway where your change occurs. The classification has been changed once before you did it.
What's going on?
Cheers,
Dave

I changed that one to highway=path - it is much more visible on the new DigitalGlobe imagery. I have no way to tell what the "trail" actually looks like and because of its remoteness I never will, so that's only a guess. I'll work on it again and check the stream crossings when I have more time.

Tried that already. It's not there. This is an annoying issue but one I cani' seem to rid myself of.

Sorry, It is a typo, caused by JOSM "remembering" a bad value. I cannot locate any place in JOSM that contains the text "fof" that I used by mistake over a year ago but JOSM insert it sometimes still. It's supposed to be "footway".

Can you tell me why you decided to raise the classification of the Seward Highway to "trunk"?
Even though that highway is a major artery in Alaska, it does not really meet the Wiki definition of a trunk road.
Regards,
AlaskaDave

It's most likely some sort of caching or currency problem with the OSM server. I'm sure it will render okay eventually.

I have spent the morning fixing errors in multipolygons and guess what? I redrew a portion of the coastline of Shuyak Island when I fixed up the Perevalnie Islands but forgot to add that new section to the coastline multipolygon. Rendering looks right now.

The OSM approval process leaves a lot to be desired. I ran a similar discussion through the tagging list and could not resolve the issue. Besides, even if "approved" by the requisite number of mappers, it still isn't "official" in any way.

Consequently, I'm not waiting for approval on this particular issue.

Thanks for the gound check.