What is the source for bikes not being permitted on Islom Karimov ko'cashi pedestrian street in Samarkand? I surveyed Samarkand for several weeks last year and frequently saw bikes on this road.

Let me remind you that last year, you were blocked from editing OSM by the Data Working Group due to these destructive edits. If you continue, I will refer this matter to the DWG again.

The rules for how to trace a road are clearly stated in the OSM Wiki, to which I pointed you last year. Whether a road is traced as one way or two has no effect on "navigation" or "traffic rules".

I reverted this edit in changeset/165765722. You were already told last year that there is no physical separation on this street (as an on-the-ground survey shows), and roads are not to be split into two ways if there is no physical separation.

Why are you adding bicycle=yes to sidewalks in Riverside? Especially when the road alongside them already has a dedicated cycleway that is tagged on OSM?

Why are you removing footway=sidewalk tags from highway=path instances that are actually sidewalks? If you disagree with the use of footway= on a highway=path, you could at least replace it with path=sidewalk in order that your edits are not destructive of on-the-ground information.

According to OSM Wiki's article for osm.wiki/Tag:maxspeed=, it has been common in a number of countries to add a "XX:rural" value there and not in source:maxspeed. If you feel that this is inappropriate, then I leave it to you to do an Overpass API query of all instances and change them.

If I added a specific number to a maxspeed= tag inside Poland, you can be sure that this was based on personally seeing the speed-limit sign; I did all such mapping on my bicycle.

How so?

As you can see from taginfo:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=roof#combinations

Over half of building=roof areas in general now have a layer tag added, and if you consider petrol station roofs, the percentage is likely much higher.

Indeed, the USA is not a thoroughly mapped country, which is why anyone mapping there would do well to look to the countries that are thoroughly mapped, so that the standard of mapping in the USA can be raised towards the level of those countries.

If you look at the most thoroughly mapped countries, they have converged towards tagging of petrol-station roofs as layer=1, and the amenity=fuel as a separate node or area in the vicinity.

Since you have been editing a very large number of amenity=fuel, you are in a good position to ensure that this tagging is implemented.

Please do not put amenity=fuel and building=roof on the same areas. This is an error and will trigger a bug on the Osmose layer. The reason is that they belong to different layers: fuel is typically layer 0, and roofs are layer 1.

There is no need to remove traffic_signals:direction tags from traffic signals like you did at 38.1884463, 21.6907385. The tag is not incorrect.

You added surface=trylinka to the tertiary highway at 54.07894, 18.63404. This is not a recognized value of surface= according to the OSM wiki, and therefore routing engines cannot properly use it.

Sorry, that should have read "…that bring to their attention daily relations that have been broken”.

These sort of things need to be fixed by public-transportation route maintainers themselves, who in many parts of the world have a cron job running that bring their attention daily to relations that have been broken. Relations are an advanced aspect of OSM editing that is beyond even many mappers with thousands of changesets and a decade+ of experience like myself.

With regard to the proposed Fontana Active Transportation Plan cycleways that you have added:

1) Although the proposed=cycleway tag that you used means that the way will not affect routing, you have also added highway=crossing tags at intersections with existing roads. These crossings do appear on maps and could potentially affect routing. This should be avoided.

2) In SoCal the standard is to map cycle lanes as cycleway=lane tags on the road itself, and not as separate ways. So, please keep this in mind if the city actually builds the proposed cycleway.

The only time my edits affect bus routes are when the bus route ran along a way that was incorrectly mapped (i.e. an extended-pencil tip intersection). The bus authority (or whatever mapper volunteers to map those routes) has to be responsible for repairing the route once the way has been correctly mapped.

At these complex intersections, please set four traffic signals nodes at the stop positions, with traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward tags, instead of two traffic signals nodes at the middle like you did. See the discussion at the wiki:

highway=traffic_signals#Complex_intersections

Over the last couple of years, most traffic signals in Southern California have been moved to the new way of tagging, which lets routing engines know that traffic is indeed moving through only a single traffic signal here.

When adding cycleway= tags (or tracing pedestrian crossing), remember that for routing purposes ways should be traced from center point to center point, regardless of where the markings begin and end. At intersection, it's clear that even if the paint begins a few meters after the intersection, the city's traffic designers obviously intended that the whole road be used by cyclists.

Hi. I'm trying to find out who has been splitting ways at intersections and adding cycleway=no tags to portions of a way where, on aerial imagery, there is no cycleway marking. If this is you, please don't tag this way, it breaks bicycle routing. The entire way up to the intersection node should have the cycleway=lane/shared lane/etc. tag.

If this wasn't you, then forgive the intrusion. The edit history is a bit complicated so it is hard to identify precisely the user responsible.

But if construction is going on, then highway=construction, construction=cycleway seems like it was the appropriate tagging. So, why change it?