There is no need to remove traffic_signals:direction tags from traffic signals like you did at 38.1884463, 21.6907385. The tag is not incorrect.

You added surface=trylinka to the tertiary highway at 54.07894, 18.63404. This is not a recognized value of surface= according to the OSM wiki, and therefore routing engines cannot properly use it.

Sorry, that should have read "…that bring to their attention daily relations that have been broken”.

These sort of things need to be fixed by public-transportation route maintainers themselves, who in many parts of the world have a cron job running that bring their attention daily to relations that have been broken. Relations are an advanced aspect of OSM editing that is beyond even many mappers with thousands of changesets and a decade+ of experience like myself.

With regard to the proposed Fontana Active Transportation Plan cycleways that you have added:

1) Although the proposed=cycleway tag that you used means that the way will not affect routing, you have also added highway=crossing tags at intersections with existing roads. These crossings do appear on maps and could potentially affect routing. This should be avoided.

2) In SoCal the standard is to map cycle lanes as cycleway=lane tags on the road itself, and not as separate ways. So, please keep this in mind if the city actually builds the proposed cycleway.

The only time my edits affect bus routes are when the bus route ran along a way that was incorrectly mapped (i.e. an extended-pencil tip intersection). The bus authority (or whatever mapper volunteers to map those routes) has to be responsible for repairing the route once the way has been correctly mapped.

At these complex intersections, please set four traffic signals nodes at the stop positions, with traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward tags, instead of two traffic signals nodes at the middle like you did. See the discussion at the wiki:

osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#Complex_intersections

Over the last couple of years, most traffic signals in Southern California have been moved to the new way of tagging, which lets routing engines know that traffic is indeed moving through only a single traffic signal here.

When adding cycleway= tags (or tracing pedestrian crossing), remember that for routing purposes ways should be traced from center point to center point, regardless of where the markings begin and end. At intersection, it's clear that even if the paint begins a few meters after the intersection, the city's traffic designers obviously intended that the whole road be used by cyclists.

Hi. I'm trying to find out who has been splitting ways at intersections and adding cycleway=no tags to portions of a way where, on aerial imagery, there is no cycleway marking. If this is you, please don't tag this way, it breaks bicycle routing. The entire way up to the intersection node should have the cycleway=lane/shared lane/etc. tag.

If this wasn't you, then forgive the intrusion. The edit history is a bit complicated so it is hard to identify precisely the user responsible.

But if construction is going on, then highway=construction, construction=cycleway seems like it was the appropriate tagging. So, why change it?

Why did you change the tagging of the cycleway at 52.2163035, 20.8845861 from highway=construction,construction=cycleway to highway=cycleway, access=no?

Sorry, there may be a misunderstanding here. I am referring here to the bridge at 52.9989938, 18.7034705. Also foot=no and bicycle=no are set. Is this bridge completely closed to traffic at the moment?

Please do not add access=no to highway=cycleways. This risks making the way completely inaccessible to bicycle routers.

What is the source of all these waterfalls you have been adding in Tajikistan? And are you sure that waterway=waterfall is the correct tag?

What is the source of the name "перевал Акраватский" that you added at 38.2556038, 66.8243655? There are no Google hits for this name (except for sources scraping OSM info).

Also, the name= tag of features in Uzbekistan should be set to the Uzbek-language name. If you find out the correct name in Russian, please move it to the name:ru= tag.

Nevermind, I have done the Overpass API query myself and removed all your building:levels and height tags. Again, please learn what “tagging for the renderer” means and kindly refrain from it.

Please do not add buildings:levels tags to objects like traffic lights. This is tagging for the renderer. The buildings:levels tag is only for buildings. There are other tags for denoting the height off the ground of other objects.

I would be grateful if you could do an Overpass API query for building:levels and highway=traffic_lights in order to remove all instances where you have made this incorrect tagging.

Please stop changing highway=path ways to highway=cycleway when there is standard European Union signage showing that the way is for both bikes and pedestrians. According to the OSM wiki, highway=path is the matching tagging for this signage:

osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath

I saw that, but clicking on path=crossing there brings one to the highway=path article, where there is no description of such a tag. That is what I mean by undocumented, this tag seems ad hoc and real-world usage in tools is low. Moreover, the footway=crossing tag on the English wiki says that it is widely used for highway=path, and this was carried over as a recommendation into the PL wiki.

Your same link recommends footway=crossing. In any event, this tag is not documented at the English wiki, and OSM is a global project where mappers may be editing Poland in addition to numerous other countries, and therefore should not be expected to know Polish conventions described only in Polish.