Please keep your edits within a small area. Changes spanning two or more continents (or the whole world) makes reviewing of local edits hard for other mappers.

Again, what’s the summary of these changes?

I thought you wouldn’t do this again because of what you see in Maps.me, but here, you did it again. I’n planning to undo this.

Just a note, I think temporary road closures that don’t last more than a month are best not tagged and best left to data users such as navigation apps. This reminds me of your edit in Muntinlupa to reflect a one-week special concern lockdown on one street there; the lockdown lapsed, but you havent’t removed the temporary tagging and routing apps can’t route through that street even if it’s already open.

Hello. I've just noticed this edit where you've deleted several buildings, including those with 3D details, and I have undone this. Please be careful editing places you don't know well. Thanks.

(machine translation)

Hallo. Saya baru saja melihat pengeditan ini di mana Anda telah menghapus beberapa bangunan, termasuk bangunan dengan detail 3D, dan saya telah membatalkannya. Harap berhati-hati mengedit tempat yang tidak Anda kenal dengan baik. Terima kasih.

Please be noted that the Dasmariñas boundary is mapped as defined under Republic Act No. 8723. Reiterating points at osm.org/changeset/94197917, legally-defined LGU boundaries can run across subdivisions or even individual buildings, but remember that the boundary has been defined long before the subdivision has been developed. Legally speaking, the Glens straddles two LGUs, even if all the houses and buildings will have its services provided by the San Pedro LGU.

This edit has been fully or partially reverted at osm.org/changeset/105380942. Reason: reverting edits on Dasmariñas LGU boundaries mapped per Republic Act No. 8723 against consensus

This edit has been fully or partially reverted at osm.org/changeset/105380844. Reason: reverting edits on Dasmariñas LGU boundaries mapped per Republic Act No. 8723 against consensus

Hi.

I have been seeing you editing a lot of administrative boundaries, which are generally mapped according to the relevant laws defining them. You have been changing a lot of them, and may need to be reverted. See also https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/76. Please avoid redrawing boundaries which has been mapped according to existing consensus, especially those based on laws.

FYI, the boundary you've try to fix has been already mapped basing on a Republic Act that defines Dasmariñas's boundaries. It has been agreed upon that Dasma's boundary should be mapped according to the RA, but you have changed it again so to make the Glens completely within San Pedro. This edit reminds me of previous attempts to redraw the the legally defined Manila/Pasay boundary, which runs across the CCP complex. I might have to revert this.

Sorry, got the wrong comment due to having it erased accidentally and replaced by those in previous edit in the app (blame the X button on top right corner before uploading!). This should say: [Sorsogon] revert road reclassifications by sock puppet of blocked user, add bridge names, fix road name and land use

I'll do also the same with vandalism as well

I've just called in the DWG to do a mass revert, and if I'll deal with changes involving copyright violations, I'll do that separately from the others.

The businesses deleted are all suspicious, been added en masse by a user which I found to be copying POIs from Google Maps by comparing map coverage. Some are in completely suspicious locations, usually at very odd spots typical of GMaps coverage in some locations. This edit reverts various edits by the user, but why would you think it's wrong to make such large changes using Go Map!?

On the node you're point, it's a mistake, and should be applied to the building. I missed out there's already a name, except it's using a key in caps. Would fix that.

Ignoring the spam above, this edit covers a large area, I but understand this is a lumping of various anonymous edits.

The same also goes with travel from southeast Edmonton and the northwest, where the most favoured route is through the Whitemud. Highway 14 and St. Albert, the main route is through the Henday.

There’s no single definition of a trunk in the Canadian context, but I follow the most commonly followed definition of a trunk being NHS core routes.

Beyond the fact they're no longer part of NHS, Highway 2 following Gateway Boulevard and Calgary Trail are no longer significantly travelled routes since the opening of the Henday. Terwillegar Drive can be a trunk as an expressway following the second, alternative definition, but that could be downgraded to secondary as most of its traffic is between the areas served. The road is designed for eventual conversion to freeway, but we can have it classified per its present usage instead of its physical attributes.

I would think the criteria for a former provincial highway to be primary is that it has been a provincial highway in the recent past and/or carries a high amount of traffic as it has been. Highway 2 used to serve downtown and Old Strathcona until it was realigned to the Whitemud, 170 Street, and the Yellowhead, and eventually its present routing, following the Henday between Whitemud and the Yellowhead (though there aren't any signs there telling that's part of Highway 2). Highway 16 also used to enter downtown, following Stony Plain Road, continuing from what's now Highway 16A, 124 Street, Jasper Ave, 95 Street, Rowland Road, 84 Street, 98 Street, 101 Ave, Baseline Road, and part of what's now the Henday, before being realigned to follow Mayfield Road, 111 Ave, 109 Street, Princess Elizabeth, and 118 Ave from the 1960s until the 1980s, 170 Street and the partially complete Yellowhead Trail in the 1980s till the 1990s, and eventually, the remaining section Yellowhead Trail to connect with the completed northern bypass of Spruce Grove and Stony Plain.

On the point they're no longer major routes to be classified primary, I completely agree. They don't carry high levels of crosstown traffic as they used to be as provincial highways, and GPS navigation won't either suggest routes following those roads (for example, when travelling from West Ed to somewhere in Northeast Edmonton as well as Strathcona County, the most likely routing will take you through the Yellowhead and the Whitemud. Same also goes with between South Edmonton and St. Albert, where the main routing is through Whitemud and Henday, or further south coming from the QE2, through the Henday.

I've fixed the service roads in question. The Whitemud eastbound ramp from 99 Street and the service roads has a bus stop (99 Street and Whitemud Drive) but that's fine.

It makes me wonder that the present Edmonton road classification guidelines documented on the wiki reserves primary for provincial highways that aren't part of NHS, when in practice, what the city designated as the inner ring road is also tagged as primary (except the Gretzky, and sections of the Yellowhead and Whitemud); the same also goes with Fort Road between the Yellowhead and Manning Drive/Highway 15.

You could’ve kept the Calgary Trail and Gateway Boulevard as primary as they're no longer part of the NHS since the Henday opened. In addition, you've upgraded parts of the Whitemud service roads into freeway ramps. These could have been kept in their existing classification, plus they also have bus stops and sidewalks.

This roads were previously raised to primary basing on a guideline that primary can be used on former provincial highways. I also use this guideline to upgrade Mayfield Road, parts of 111 Ave, 109 Street, most of Princess Elizabeth, and 118 Ave as the former Highway 16 before realignment to the Yellowhead. What really applies for these?