Thanks for contributing to OSDM. Just why the Korea peninsula and US east coat in one edit set. Few will comprehend but you should know every mapper in-between is forced to see this in their local change set history list. Did you want that to happen? Please split your edits per country and save them separately.

Many thanks in advance.

PS 'MO' is not a proper change set comment description. Write in word what you did. There's a wiki discussing the good bad and ugly.

Your changeset of yesterday has so far necessitated me to restore and repair 21 broken highway continuity issues flagged in Osmose. PLZ STOP. You evidently do not to understand the inter-relation of various streets and road ratings and why they are what they are.

Fix includes resolving flag "Wrong highway on roundabout"

What's bad is that ALL CS's by wheelmap uses the default "Modified via wheelmap.org". Can't possibly believe they cannot put proper descriptive comments in, even the level 0 bare bones editor allows to overwrite the generic comment text. Something for the chiefs to address with she/him/them. Popular last few days... somewhere up north and then as cherry a node in the ME or Far East.

It IS a deal when confronted with these a dozen times a day, and 90% always seem to come from the same corner on this planet. Maybe this could be made a talking point at the local chapters of OSM contributors. A permanent footnote on every wiki page. "Map Local in a session, map within your borders. U Too!"

Thanks for the assist on this goal. route SP58 is done.

The SP58 sign is on the wrong side of the rotonda. I'll amend, triple ref :O)))

ON majella, more and more signs get replaced. My source is a visit to the buro of tourism in Pretoro. All their material is j, as it was last year in Sant'Eufemia. She said it's has some international reasoning behind it... a foreigner phonetically hears a j and will search with that spelling. It's wurst to me long as it's consistent.

Corner of the Lettomanoppello rotonda in my 2020 personal imagery and that of recent streetview shows SP58-0 direction upper LM at left. That's another one to dig out, but of lesser routing significance. Few days ago charted the SP59 and SP59b which is Turrivilignano direction than down again to Villa Breda. SP58 did not seem farfetched, but as said, it's something for the reverse polish task stack.

I go by the km road signs and spot checked from the beginning and end and all are SS614 as described in my previous comment, so I'll proceed with the route taking your ANAS link as canonical, virtually 27km, albeit their map on their page actually shows the old SP65 tag from Scafa to Lettomanoppelo (OFL). La Majelletta (new spelling), is just a sub set of the route, the whole simply Strada Statale 614, and yes, there's been those hand overs.

BTW, I cycled from Sulmona to Pescara along the Tiburtina end of June, actually just east at Pratola Peligna came on, not a single sign SR5, all SS5, direction signs as well. It's the chaos by design I suppose :O)))

OK, so found km signs 26-0, I, II, III and those indicate it's SS614. There must be some other document but the search engine eludes me. Maybe it's a descend from Passo Lanciano to the wolf junction, i.e. Scafa, Lettomanoppello, PL, wolf rotonda. 26km and a bit would approximate the distance to those 2 points.

TTYL.

Ah yes, the wiki https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strada_statale_614_della_Maielletta

hi there

You tagged this road 2 years ago as SS614, but ANAS and wiki have this road not start until the junction where the wolf cries to Passo Lanciano, 10km long. Was about to create a route relation, then saw it's 10km long, when Scafa to PL is about 25. Got a reference link for me to affix to the relation and get the proper from/to info in?

Many thanks in advance.

In my mind there's no doubt that hikers/mtb runners are conscientious mappers (most all mappers are), not questioning the accuracy of the numbers and the meaning. Now contributor(s) put information in which has now been gone. At the very least I'd have stored it in the note or description field. When then the next mapper comes around s/he's got a cross reference on hand... check, check, check.

my 2 lira.

SC tells the user to 'complete' where they are 'surveying', not where they were during the last vacation ;o). The nature of the beast is that it will come all edits of the same type consecutively i.e. surface and surface and surface. Set to auto save and map varying things and chances are things get split. When I use it I force reporting while on the move and even then same items get combined causing boxes villages apart. SC does so, level 0 editor does so too, so just don't is the advise and many will thank you who're only interested to see a history list end edit boxes that are relevant to their area.
cheers

Just wondering, why not move the numbers which were on the name field onto the ref field, which the wiki does ref-erence? The sample of ref=111 denotes you can have 111A, B, C etc.

OK, so from the municipio location at that spot we can derive the street/square in front is named Piazza Umberto I. One more blank filled ;O

PS I've removed the name from the residential area as else the chance exists the name would render twice on the map. Not good. why the name appeared in the different spot before is unclear but you got the node back in the exact spot where it was before. All is zen again.

Ah yes, was just reading about that in the wiki and wanting to reverse my overhasty action Curiously the node is now in a different place than it was before. Where is this 'admin_centre' location recorded?

What's puzzling is touching an interpolated address line, and now one appearing diagonally [no history] across a build up area. Always thought these lines go along a street/road edge. Have never mapped any other way either.

Hi

re way/943322478

no building levels=0, but roof levels=2 ??

The second building

way/943322478

building levels =0, roof levels = 3 ??

Can't possibly be right