You mentioned that there is no exit from Honungsvägen and Gullrisvägen, so how can you enter Gullrisvägen from Honungsvägen if there is no exit? Therefore, the tag is used at the end of the street, not for the entire street.

I have no comment on mechanical edits... We did not invent the mapping rules and how tags are used. As you know, everything is clearly stated here: osm.wiki/Tag:noexit%3Dyes.

Anyone can always reverse how it should be mapped and accuse someone else of not doing it correctly.

Before you continue to comment and accuse, I would kindly ask you to read more about the topic and familiarize yourself with osmose errors: https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/byuser/AndersAndersson?username=AndersAndersson&item=3210.

Osmose issue 3210 refers to a problem in OpenStreetMap data where a way (road or path) is marked with the noexit=yes tag, but it has multiple exits or connections. This tag is typically used to indicate that a way has no exit at its end, which helps in navigation and routing. However, if the way has multiple exits, the tag is incorrectly applied and need to be fixed.
If the situation is as described, you should place the noexit=yes tag on a node at the end of the street, not on the entire street.

Hi SomeoneElse,
I changed the road classification from 'track' to 'service' because the road passes by two houses, and it has been suggested that the 'track' tag should not be used for access to permanent human settlements or structures, as mentioned here: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack. I didn’t have GT to confirm the exact type of access, so I didn’t add it. As you can see, it wasn’t there before my change either. In fact, the road was previously marked as 'service'. If you disagree, I can revert it to how it was before, no problem at all.

As you recommended, I reached out to Futura69 to clarify whether there is a bridleway sign.

Hello user2981,

Thank you for the information. It looks like I've mistakenly used the surface tag instead of the name tag in these changesets. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and thank you for fixing that.

Best regards and happy mapping,

Misa

Hi Bre543Kitty,
I noticed you edited the relation osm.org/relation/17128406 by removing the polygon and leaving only the node. You've added another admin_level=5 relation as well.
Can you explain whether the relation "Vanadzor community" exists and if so can you fix it?

Dragomira, u pravu si.
Hvala sto si primetio.

Hi Map-Finder,
Is this gas station (38.1045293, 23.755392) in function? On the last mapillary imagery there is a fence there. If it's not I would like to change the geometry and remove turn restrictions.
Thanks,
Misa

Odlicno uradjeno!

I thank you for that.
Misa_zumba

Hi Phil,
Thanks for taking care of this. I have overlooked the area. Sorry for the late reply. I'll pay more attention in the future.
Thanks,
Misa_zumba

Hi obraynt456,
I have fixed some disconnected relations but I have noticed that there are several boundaries with "/" character in the name tag.
Why is this?
Can this be name/alt_name tag, instead of using "/" in name tag?
Thanks,
Misa_zumba

Hi Lucas Marques,
in this changeset, you have created lots of unconnected nodes like:
osm.org/node/11237719209/history
Can you please check and remove all unconnected/duplicates nodes?
Thanks,
Misa_zumba

Hi Tómas Ingi,
Is there any particular reason why this road should be tertiary, as opposed to service like it was osm.org/way/962315999?. What is your opinion?

Hi Tómas Ingi,
Thank you for pointing this out. You are completely right I have overlooked the ref. I have corrected it to previous state.

Hello NKA,
Thank you for the advice, I will use "Norway Orthophoto" and "Kartverket N50 topo".

No need for that.
As you can see on this link
https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=61.0149642&lon=14.5384154&zoom=19&camera.theta=55.027&camera.phi=28.648
just turn off all "Display" and wait for that part of the map to be displayed.
It renders perfectly fine when you add "building=roof" because implies that is above the ground. With tag "covered=yes" you explain that that specific part of the road is covered that's why they share the same node and don't make any problem on the map. It would be problem if you have "covered=yes" tag on a way and nothing above.

Hi AndersAndersson,
Thank you for contacting me and for noticing that. You have a right, tag building=roof should be used when we map covered parts of the road.
On the contrary, they have to share nodes so we can explain the meaning of that intersection, for example, when you map garage enter, covered, building_pasage...
If you use layers to avoid map errors that is not good because that way you don't show the actual state of the map.
Actually, you can drive from the street on the top of the building roof.
59.9693094, 11.0068766 ;)
Misa_zumba

Hi AndersAndersson,
Thank you for contacting me and for noticing that. You have a right, tag building=roof should be used when we map covered parts of the road.
On the contrary, they have to share nodes so we can explain the meaning of that intersection, for example, when you map garage enter, covered, building_pasage...
If you use layers to avoid map errors that is not good because that way you don't show the actual state of the map.
Actually, you can drive from the street on the top of the building roof.
59.9693094, 11.0068766 ;)
Misa_zumba

Hey Warin61, thanks for the contact. This change is more than 3 years old. However, please check the NSW base map (DCS NSW Base Map) and you will see the name.
Thanks,
Misa