It is customary to map what is on the ground in OSM, in accordance with global conventions on how to map. And that convention is not to draw separate ways for road sections that are separated only by painted lines. If highway ramps are mapped differently in Quebec, that would make navigation software work differently in Quebec than it does in the rest of the world, which is quite undesirable for a global project.

The amount of snowfall in Quebec is quite irrelevant.

I don't understand the rationale here. There is specific tagging for lanes that's perfectly capable of supporting autonomous vehicles or navigation software.

Hi there - I've made a few fixes to boundaries out of this changeset. Some of the boundary relations were missing "roles" of "outer" or "inner" which are required. Unfortunately iD does not warn you of this error...

Hi there. I noticed that some of the boundaries you added were missing relation role entries (for example, Madison Township fixed in osm.org/changeset/120396640).

Boundary relation member ways should have roles "outer" and "inner" as appropriate.

Hello! This edit broke the boundary of Rosebery because two of the member ways are missing relation roles. Did you notice if the the editor reported any warnings when editing the boundary?

In general it's not typical practice to tag conservation easements (which is what it sounds like these are) as nature reserves, and there has been debate on whether these are even objects that should be mapped. The closest tagging that would probably make sense is landuse=conservation, and even that is probably controversial.

There is a very active chat community and mappers talk to each other :) I would invite you to join Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) or Discord (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap) for a more interactive experience.

Hi, you mapped a bunch of objects that are tagged as nature reserves, can you clarify what these are?

Hello, can you explain what this object is?

osm.org/relation/3722312

Hello,

Unfortunately this edit broke the boundary polygon of Bixby. I've corrected it in osm.org/changeset/120143395

This is an issue with the iD editor, unfortunately it gives you no warning when this happens (see https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8286)

I would strongly advise you to use JOSM when editing boundaries!

Broken boundary of Birmingham fixed in osm.org/changeset/120143296

Hi there - please note a number of your recent boundary edits have left broken boundaries behind. iD is not a good choice for boundary edits, because it doesn't validate that the boundary is correctly constructed. I would strongly recommend that you use JOSM when editing boundaries, as it has full validation capabilities.

See https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8286 for documentation of the current issue with iD.

Sock puppet documented at osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Sockpuppets

Harassments account krusefahrer documented at osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Sockpuppets

The reason for the disagreement on display here, is that mappers working in Louisiana have not yet formed a consensus on how highway classifications should be applied, consistent with:

osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Both txemt and 1T_money (and other locals) have been involved in discussions on Slack in #local-louisiana to hash out classification guidance for Louisiana. As part of these discussions, A Flappy Civic and txemt have collaborated on the following draft (according to the link above) guideline:

osm.wiki/Louisiana/Highway_Classification

The Slack discussions have stalled, largely over disagreements about what role FHA functional classifications should have in determining highway classification values. Thus, we are in a situation where the mappers involved have (a) discussed and are intimately aware of the issue and (b) have not come to an agreement on how to tag.

Given this state of affairs, unilateral edits to change highway classification, particularly by the mappers which have been in active discussions over the issue, are tantamount to edit warring. Agreements on how to classify highways should be made through discussion and consensus in community fora (Slack, mailing list, Discourse, wiki talk page, etc), and NOT via unilateral edits to the map.

Additionally, this edit and others like it have vague descriptions like "updated tags". Given the high level of attention to US highway classification tagging in the US (thousands of Slack messages, multiple email threads, several presentations at State of the Map US), such vague descriptions may give others the impression that the author may be trying to hide classification changes amongst more minor edits. It would be better to note the source and rationale for such changes.

In short, I would encourage the local community of mappers to continue forging ahead on establishing agreements on how to classify roads, and avoid making classification changes which are known to be controversial.

Hi, can you tell me what the source is for these street names? I'm sure they're not visible on Bing Maps ;)

Ahh you beat me too it :-D

See list of discussions here:
osm.wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization#References

Either footway or pedestrian areas would be a good fit here.

In OpenStreetMap we add correct data, and we do not map for specific apps or data consumers. If an app you are developing is crashing, that's a problem with your app, not with OpenStreetMap.