That wiki advice is not actually universally employed. Moreover, with regard to bicycle routing (notice that the link connects to a cycleway) tagging the link road as =primary does not actually describe the situation on the ground, where a cyclist would still be traversing a road of secondary classification.

Source= tag for this changeset should have been "Bing, Mapillary", sorry.

If you tag a way with lanes=x where x is an odd number, all mappers after using using JOSM will have to deal with a complaint that lanes:forward and lanes:backward is missing. I believe (though I am not certain) that Osmose also generates a bug for every instances of odd-numbered lanes without lanes:forward and lanes:backward. This makes a lot of additional work for your fellow mappers. So, please add the lanes:forward, lanes:backward and (if relevants) lanes:both_ways tags yourself in order to avoid these problems for others.

Please do not change lanes= tags on highways from lanes=4 to lanes=5, as you did here with way 406459032, unless you are going to add lanes:forward=, lanes:backward=, and lanes:both_ways= tags. Otherwise you are potentially generating bugs in Osmose and for future mappers in their editors.

Please don’t tag service ways going through petrol stations as layer=-1, tunnel=yes, as you did to the Orlen at 52.8455066, 19.6704390. It is inaccurate, this road is not a tunnel. Moreover, the standard around the world now is that the roof way at the petrol station gets layer=1, so the service road is layer=0.

Late to this changeset, but concerned about this statement: "changing signals to be marked at the center of the intersection as opposed to individually coming from every direction into the intersection". This is completely backwards from modern OSM tagging processes: for complex intersections, multiple traffic_signals nodes that are directionally tagged are preferred. Helps routing engines correctly calculate penalties for traffic signals, and lets voice guidance warn about correct distance to upcoming traffic-signal stop positions.

It has been years since this edit. I don’t remember why I used access:motor_vehicle. But from a modern tagging perspective, yes, you can change this to motor_vehicle=private.

At 32.74944, -117.08726, you added a northbound left-turn secondary_link. Bing imagery shows that that northbound secondary_link doesn’t connect to 50th Street. Please check this and, if the imagery you were using was out of date, please fix (while preserving the additional tags I added to the secondary_link).

What is the source for the cycleway=track on Lemon Avenue in La Mesa? I cannot see that on Bing imagery, even though the bicycle infrastructure in the rest of this area is very clear.

You added erroneous highway=crossing tags and highway=footway,crossing=crossing ways in San Diego residential areas (for example, at the south end of Glenellen Lane). Areal imagery does not show any crossings there. If there is not an official crossing, then the highway=footway,footway=sidewalk tag should continue over the highway=residential without any special tagging.

(There was a highway=crossing,crossing=unmarked tag, but this has been deprecated.)

I am under no obligation to make any further changes in an area that I do not even remember. My assumption is that I added that tag for a reason, and therefore I will not remove it myself. If an on-the-ground mapper feels that the tag does not accurately describe the way, then that mapper can remove the tag. Please stop sending me private messages and making changeset comments about this matter.

I don’t know why you keep asking me questions. As I said, I mapped this area two years ago and I no longer remember any of it. If you have questions about tagging, it would be better to ask them on the OSM Forum instead of under this changeset.

I surveyed this place over two years ago and I do not remember the place. It requires a new survey from a local mapper.

I’m inclined to say that it is probably shop=storage_rental, but I no longer remember this location and it would require a survey by a local mapper there.

Please do not use the tag amenity=vehicle_inspection for border checkpoints (even if the border checkpoint is called "Vehicle Inspection"). According to OSM wiki, this tag is for local inspection points for vehicles for emissions testing, etc.

osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dvehicle_inspection

The cycle path at 32.65965, -117.06641 is unconnected at its north end. That means that it is useless for cycle routing. Please connect it to whatever road cyclists would use there after they exit the cycleway.

I'm thousands of km away and mapping from imagery, so I’ll just have to take your word for it. The mapping looked unusual enough that I thought it was worth double-checking.

At 32.80136, -117.24724, is there really no motor-vehicle traffic from west to east on Diamond Street?

Sorry. This has been corrected in changeset 142594168. I'm surprised this wasn’t caught by one of the scripts that the Polish OSM community runs.

I was concerned about whether this was an official name, or just some people’s nickname for the site. And now I am concerned about the license terms for the website you took the name from.