Hello Kovoschiz, the edit I made was related to the motorway segment, which appeared to be representing a bus bay (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.358042621074578&lng=114.17277968499266&z=17&dateFrom=2018-11-01&pKey=aX5EJoiIFokUP6sSFzFaqA&focus=photo). Are you referring to the physical separation between the two nodes you tagged (osm.org/node/568020794 and osm.org/node/2614791420) as “traffic_calming=island"?

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and feel free to reach out if you discover any additional edits of this nature.

Thanks for the information.

Hi Hjart,

I was looking at SDFE Skraafoto. Upon further investigation I can see that this is still blocked to vehicle traffic. I will change it back. Thanks!

I did not realize улица Льва Толстого was in poor condition. Would it be better if these ways (osm.org/way/223480409 , osm.org/way/69286879) were tertiary highways? I will return all members of 28К-0058 to primary, and return the ways from переулок Карла Маркса through Пролетарская улица to secondary. Thanks for the information.

Hello olehz, was this bridge over Опір not correctly modeled as a dual-carriageway? A painted barrier is visible in Bing and Esri images, and a physical barrier is visible in both Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=49.10964794195&lng=23.5957776517&z=17&pKey=GuxTWku5buMyZrNBu0LBYg&focus=photo) and OpenStreetCam (https://openstreetcam.org/details/1276687/2804/track-info).

"Hello Thunder08, do you know if traffic can continue south along Леонтовича вулиця past Велика Арнаутська вулиця?"

I see your point. I'll post to the Hong Kong discord (https://discord.gg/PzEYCZ) to see if others have an opinion as well.

Hi Kovosch,

Per the highway link wiki page (osm.wiki/Highway_link) it states, "Try not to split up the link into one part belonging to one road and one to the other with different classifications.” I noticed this was split up into two classifications so I changed it to one classification in order to meet this policy.

Thanks

Hi jc86035,

If highway areas want to be represented, the more appropriate tag would be exactly what you suggested (area:highway=*) per the wiki: osm.wiki/Key:area:highway. Since these areas seemed to be one-off and not common in Hong Kong, I removed the tags highway=*, area=yes.

Thanks

I’ve made the appropriate edits according to our discussion on the changeset. Since the discussion has become more broadly related to highway_link classifications, perhaps this conversation is better suited to a more public forum (Telegram, Discord, etc).

Thanks,

GeoidDude

As far as I know there isn’t currently a discussion forum. If there isn’t one, maybe a Telegram group would be a good place? That way people can use their computers or mobile phones for it.

@jc86035, I agree that (osm.org/way/562205337) should not be residential, as it does not access any residential areas. As for (osm.org/way/33277266), what would you suggest instead of service?

Hello jc86035,

Great! I agree that these segments are best represented by primary links, rather than motorway links. Thanks for talking through the issue with me.

As for the bridge to the southwest, I agree primary links ought to be utilized in this situation as well, but I am reluctant to reclassify both residential segments as primary links. Do you agree that way 33277266 (osm.org/way/33277266) could be an extension of the service classification, at which point the remaining ways (osm.org/way/562205337, osm.org/way/294630949, osm.org/way/33277245) would continue as primary links to the roundabout? Then the last way (osm.org/way/33277242), could be changed to a motorway link?

Thanks for pointing out how crucial posted signage is for determining the appropriate classification of motorway segments, in Hong Kong. Based on what you’re describing, what classification do you think these three segments (way 157658081, way 33277548, way 294630968) should be?

Hello jc86035,

I am aware of that policy and my interpretation is that road purpose plays a role in deciding whether roads should be a link or not. In this case, I believe the main purpose of the slip road is to provide access to the motorway, while the service road exclusively provides access to destination. Do you have a different interpretation of this policy or on how road purpose plays into link classifications?

Thanks for the information, Muralito. I have gone ahead and removed the ref from the highway link.

Thank you for the local information.

Thanks for the message. I have returned the junction to how it existed before.

Thanks for the message. On closer inspection I fully agree and have fixed this junction.

Typo in source field. The survey mentioned is Mapillary.