When JOSM warns you about changeset size, it will just do that, warn you. If you actually want to split the changes you have to do it by yourself as there are instances where you want to override the warning and upload a big changeset

Waldyrious, yes I realize it would help to have the reference in the first comment/source. The community post barely mentions this changeset, so even if I had added the act, the user in Magic Earth wouldn't be able to see it. Right after someone mentioned this changeset, someone else mentioned another source. Here in this discussion I've added the official act to help with the discussion.

On the other hand, the comment from topolusitania and the discussion in OSM telegram were more generic and generally centered around A22.

There's still some controversy that there's a segment in the A25 which is paid, I'm not sure if this is information is outdated or if it's true where is it paid and what's a good source

My apologies for the previous assumptions. In that case, I won't be able to change the current state even if it is incorrect unless the original poster details their findings

Hello Mateusz Konieczny! The tags of some highways in Portugal have recently been changed by the comunity from toll=yes to toll=no as the latest law rekoved toll payments in these highways, A25 being one of them (https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/37-2024-875716581).

In your community post, you mentioned that it isn't toll free but you didn't show how did you made that observation. Since it's a recent change, the most infrastructure of toll gantries is still there just deactivated. If there's a specific segment where you found that the toll wasn't free please let me know and I'll check with the Local Community

Best Regards

Hm, then I'm also clueless how it might be happening. The ways in question is w1052848283 and w1341422886. In the first case, buses will go from "Rua Principal" to "Rua do Chafariz Velho" (some buses will come from one part of "Rua Principal" and others from the other part). On the second one. Buses should go from "Estrada das Ameiras" to "Rua do Chafariz Velho" via Largo do Rio Covão.

P.S.: I've been testing a bit and I think I've found the issue, OSM iD checks seem to be very basic and just check if both ways are in all the relations. In these bus routes, the relation goes from "Rua Principal" to "Rua do Chafariz Velho" but it also goes from "Rua do Chafariz Velho" to "Rua Principal" (other direction) Since both ways of "Rua Principal" is in the relation, it figures it's ok to merge the ways. JOSM on the other hand will give a warning even in such cases.

It's not worth to fix these in particular since i'm preparing a changeset that will fix it together with other bus routes. Regarding OSM iD, there's not much to do as it doesn't warn in these situations and the bus routes don't show up that well.

In any case, appreciate your time for this discussion and for the added street names.

It's seems that you've applied the name you found by survey and whatever method you're using to make that change, it's combining two ways. Since some bus routes will only use one of the segments, that one segment will either be deleted or will have the nodes of both segments. Either way, if the bus route is not changed it will create a gap since the relation can't find the way or finds it but the end node isn't shared with the next way.

I see you've used iD for this changeset, how are you applying the names? If you select both ways and do "combine" it will result in this error, if you select both ways and just change the name to both simultaneously, this error will not happen

Be careful when combining ways and roads, some bus routes now have gaps because of it

Hello there. I've noticed you've made recent changes to the way 1230149675. What is Sender Garrucha ET01? it is tagged as path but on street images and aerial images there doesn't seem to be any path with the described geometry. Perhaps shouldn't this be mapped as a relation of other footways?

Hello there. What is Sender Garrucha ET01? it is tagged as path but on street images and aerial images there doesn't seem to be any path with the described geometry. Perhaps shouldn't this be mapped as a relation of other footways?

Hello! There is a need to be careful on deleting area=yes from leisure ways such as leisure=track. This type of leisure is available by OSM and its renderer as an area or as a simple path by tagging either with area=yes or area=no. By deleting this tag, one should either move the outer way to the centerline or create a multipolygon relation and creating a inner way.

Agradeço a resposta. Quando vi as vias no OSM apresentava uma configuração antiga que como indica, tinha as vias juntas na portagem que era diferente das imagens satélites mais recentes. Ao corrigir encontrei este changeset que sugeria que essa correção tinha sido feita mas não consegui encontrar as alterações no mapa. Entretanto já corrigi para a situação atual e tal como descreve

Olá! Das imagens aéreas mais recentes e imagens ao nivel de rua (mapillary) vi que as vias que vem do IP8 e IC1 encontram-se separadas até à portagem, permitindo depois desta a mudança de via para ambos os sentidos da A2. Vi situação semelhante no outro lado: via comum até à portagem, depois desta vias separadas para A26 e IC1/EN259.

Deste changeset, vi que a configuração está um pouco diferente das imagens, Foi assim observado no terreno?

Thanks for the input and will keep that in mind for future maproulette changesets

Porque razão o nó "Bicicletas Gira Estação 450 (6355829066)" foi movido? Nas imagens de satélite mostram a posição anterior. Desde Junho que foi reposicionada para onde estava marcado com 15 docas

fonte: Mapbox; ESRI satellite

Olá, já não tenho os ficheiros que utilizei para mapear, portanto não consigo determinar onde surgiu o problema. De facto a morada e a ref são de uma escola nas furnas. E agora que pesquisei melhor, a way/614300085 está com as tags incorretas e deveria ter posto na way/284545544

@FasterTracker Na altura que fiz estas escolas, não conhecia essa metodologia. Mas já me tinham informado que não devia eliminar elementos, precisamente para manter o histórico. Então apenas criei a área e eventualmente o nodo seria tratado por alguém mais experiente