Haha - touche!
I have never used the bridge:ref tag but after you replied, I realized that several of the bridges I cross on my bicycle rides in Saraphi have these strange numerical refs that I believe I tagged with a simple ref tag.

I'll need ro check my own bridge tagging as a result of our conversation LOL

Greetings Julien,
Not a biggie. First, congrats on getting this ref changed to ตก.7054 so quickly. You beat me to it.

There are a couple of river bridges on this route that have names, for example, ตก.019.

Did you mean to use the name tag for them or would the tag bridge:name = ตก.019 be more appropriate?

Dave

Hmmm... I don't recall ever tagging anything with surface=clay.

Please feel free to edit anything in this changeset that has a surface tag that needs to be updated.

Dave

Oops, sorry.
I got a little wild on the simplify tool. I always check to make sure I don't disturb existing objects but that one must've slipped past my eagle-eye scrutiny LOL

I must have pasted the last value used onto the node for the pass

I fixed it,

Just a typo no doubt. Please correct it.

Thank you

Haha - it is. I must have hit <shift>R and copied wrong tags. Who knows? Anyway, good catch. I corrected it.

I use AI generated infrequently. But I wonder if this is any worse than the historic practice of using the :th-Ltn version of the name for name:en? Even though name:th-Ltn is meant to be more pronounceable than the original Thai, it's often utterly meaningless to a non-Thai speaker.

Hi again,
I think I used this tag for lack of a better descriptor. Shops selling gold are common in Thailand. It's fashioned as jewelry but people commonly buy gold at such shops primarily as an investment rather than adornment, although one might wear the necklaces and bracelets that are purchased.

I might do some research on the tagging of these shops to see if I can make it fit with shop=jewelry

What do you think?

It looks like you got all of them Mateusz.

Dave

No problem, Mateusz.
Those are not my additions. And they're not RocketMan's either. I discovered those long ago and contacted the mapper who put them there and he told me he uses them for help in creating his customized Garmin-compatible maps and requested that I not delete them. And I did not.

I can't recall who it was now but seeing as I told him I wouldn't delete them, I leave the decision in your hands.

Dave

I tagged 1090 as unpaved from the gate at the Hung-Yai Naresuan East Wildlife Sanctuary all the way to the end because the imagery in both Google Maps and ESRI World seemed to suggest it.

I understand that about dirt roads. Seems like bad reasoning to me but I accept it.
However, I checked https://roadnet3.doh.go.th/ and determined that the end of 1090 is actually here:
15.7244366, 99.0181376
not at the end of the mapped OSM way.
I then demoted that last section to an unpaved track.

Sorry, my bad. You did not set the highway=secondary but did add the ref:1090 to the unclassified section I'm referring to

Hi,
I was looking at route 1090 in Tak Province beyond Umphang. You upgraded the last part of that road to a secondary highway and added ref:1090 all the way to its end in the wildlife preserve. However, a quick check on Google Streetview shows it as only a rough track quite a distance north of the road end.
I'm trying to understand why you upgraded that part of the highway.

Thanks,
Dave

I just noticed that your NHD import was added (2020) after my mapping of the Tununak River and tribs. (2017).

I wish you had done a better job of checking for existing waterways before the import operation.

I just noticed that your NHD import was added (2020) after my mapping of the Tununak River and tribs. (2017).

I wish you had done a better job of checking for existing waterways before the import operation.

I'm talking about the east side ramps. Those are the ones you edited to add the ref=11 and name tags. The west side is tagged correctly, that is, as a trunk_lnk without any names or ref added.

I believe the tags you added are incorrect. They aren't harmful, in fact, they could be helpful to a simplistic routing algorithm. However, the reason I was editing that intersection was to add destination and destination refs to the first sections of the highways branching off the 1136. I think that will supply information to routers in a more appropriate way.

I'm not going to remove any of your tagging but I think you should.

Respectfully,

Dave

Hi,
You tagged the ramp on the east side of the Super Highway at the junction of route 1136 as highway=trunk and name:en= Super Highway
I believe this way and all it's sections should be tagged highway=trunk_lnk and should not have either a ref=11 or a name. It merely provides access the the Super Highway and therefore should be tagged just like the similar ramp on the east side of the Superhighway.

What do you say about this?

Dave

Hello again and thanks for your reply

I'm quite aware of your point about not mapping for the renderer. The "Map tool" I'm using is a Garmin-compatible map I created myself and I've never before seen it exhibit this behavior nor have I ever seen this tagging scenario. I can adjust my compiler coding to display the actual Exit 49 destinations but I thought I'd politely check with you first. I did not intend to delete the ref tag.

As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong about this, the ref that you applied to all the ways making up Interchange 49 is still problematical. The Wiki text you cited might or might not apply here because the ways in question, those following the junction node, are not part of any relation nor are they signed in any way. Furthermore, the exit is not "signed as 49" as you state but is signed as "Exit 49" as are most other exits I've checked.

So, to reiterate, I'm not questioning the use of the junction:ref=49 tagging which, although new to me, seems correct but your use of the ref=49 on the other ways in that interchange. None of the six or seven other I-90 interchanges that I inspected in for purposes of this discussion have any ways tagged with a ref=nn as you've done for the Exit 49 interchange.

I have written and answered many Changeset comments before and believe it is an accepted way to carry on these discussions. Sorry if that offended you.

Dave