The map of Baku is full of amenity=townhall nodes, but these are incorrect. For example, the car repair shop at 40.3080260, 49.7870886 should not be tagged amenity=townhall. Please see the OSM wiki for the correct usage of this tag:

amenity=townhall

Also, if I made any changes to intersections, they often came with the addition of turn:lanes and surface tags, so if you are (IMHO unnecessarily) reverting, then ensure that the new tags are preserved in any revert.

Judging from what I saw of SoCal when I began mapping, pencil-tip intersections are not considered incorrect. (Extended pencil tips are, and I have removed what few I have come across).

I mean, with regard to this particular way: way/406459444

But if you relied on the fixme tag elsewhere along the road to guide your or others’ future edits, then sorry for removing it.

OK, with regard to East Meats Avenue, I see on this way that I removed a fixme=“This should not be a dual carriageway”. However, Bing imagery shows a road marking that many mappers would interpret as physical separation, and therefore tagging the road as two separate oneway ways seemed to be in accordance with the common conventions in this region from before I mapped here.

Again, I don’t believe I downgraded intersections, but if you believe that there is some error, please give me the exact coordinates.

With regard to “jumping all over the world”, I spent most of 2023 and early 2024 working on the greater Los Angeles and San Diego regions. Right now, however, I am mapping where I am traveling. There is nothing unusual about this in the OSM community.

Please give me a link to the actual way where I removed the fixme tag. This edit was months ago and I have made many hundreds of edits in the Los Angeles region from imagery.

With regard to traffic signals, I don’t believe that I added any in the wrong location. Most of my edits in the Los Angeles region involving traffic signals has been removing duplicate traffic signals at complex intersections, as described on the wiki:

highway=traffic_signals#Complex_intersections

Did I make a mistake in this process somewhere?

That wiki advice is not actually universally employed. Moreover, with regard to bicycle routing (notice that the link connects to a cycleway) tagging the link road as =primary does not actually describe the situation on the ground, where a cyclist would still be traversing a road of secondary classification.

Source= tag for this changeset should have been "Bing, Mapillary", sorry.

If you tag a way with lanes=x where x is an odd number, all mappers after using using JOSM will have to deal with a complaint that lanes:forward and lanes:backward is missing. I believe (though I am not certain) that Osmose also generates a bug for every instances of odd-numbered lanes without lanes:forward and lanes:backward. This makes a lot of additional work for your fellow mappers. So, please add the lanes:forward, lanes:backward and (if relevants) lanes:both_ways tags yourself in order to avoid these problems for others.

Please do not change lanes= tags on highways from lanes=4 to lanes=5, as you did here with way/406459032, unless you are going to add osm.wiki/Tag:lanes:forward=, osm.wiki/Tag:lanes:backward=, and lanes:both_ways= tags. Otherwise you are potentially generating bugs in Osmose and for future mappers in their editors.

Please don’t tag service ways going through petrol stations as layer=-1, tunnel=yes, as you did to the Orlen at 52.8455066, 19.6704390. It is inaccurate, this road is not a tunnel. Moreover, the standard around the world now is that the roof way at the petrol station gets layer=1, so the service road is layer=0.

Late to this changeset, but concerned about this statement: "changing signals to be marked at the center of the intersection as opposed to individually coming from every direction into the intersection". This is completely backwards from modern OSM tagging processes: for complex intersections, multiple traffic_signals nodes that are directionally tagged are preferred. Helps routing engines correctly calculate penalties for traffic signals, and lets voice guidance warn about correct distance to upcoming traffic-signal stop positions.

It has been years since this edit. I don’t remember why I used access:motor_vehicle. But from a modern tagging perspective, yes, you can change this to motor_vehicle=private.

At 32.74944, -117.08726, you added a northbound left-turn secondary_link. Bing imagery shows that that northbound secondary_link doesn’t connect to 50th Street. Please check this and, if the imagery you were using was out of date, please fix (while preserving the additional tags I added to the secondary_link).

What is the source for the cycleway=track on Lemon Avenue in La Mesa? I cannot see that on Bing imagery, even though the bicycle infrastructure in the rest of this area is very clear.

You added erroneous highway=crossing tags and highway=footway,crossing=crossing ways in San Diego residential areas (for example, at the south end of Glenellen Lane). Areal imagery does not show any crossings there. If there is not an official crossing, then the highway=footway,footway=sidewalk tag should continue over the highway=residential without any special tagging.

(There was a highway=crossing,crossing=unmarked tag, but this has been deprecated.)

I am under no obligation to make any further changes in an area that I do not even remember. My assumption is that I added that tag for a reason, and therefore I will not remove it myself. If an on-the-ground mapper feels that the tag does not accurately describe the way, then that mapper can remove the tag. Please stop sending me private messages and making changeset comments about this matter.

I don’t know why you keep asking me questions. As I said, I mapped this area two years ago and I no longer remember any of it. If you have questions about tagging, it would be better to ask them on the OSM Forum instead of under this changeset.

I surveyed this place over two years ago and I do not remember the place. It requires a new survey from a local mapper.