That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

While we are at it - I would think single segment streets warrant the relation as well? - for arguments of uniformity, the fact that tagging scheme is also about (potentially) addresses, not only street segments.. and the possibility that talked about segment might need to be split in the future to accomodate varying attributes along.

*fix typo in :en spelling, *not* :ka

Hi, thnx for showing the proper way to do it and fixing the part of it.

I intend to create street relations for the rest of the ways touched by the changeset and move the tagging there.

Some questions:
1. Do the eponymous lanes and dead ends belong to relation as street members? (I assume no, but some different named members?)
2. The wiki - osm.wiki/Relation:street - specifically warns agains deleting existing tagging in favour of the relation scheme. I assume it's fine to remove tags from the ways in the context of this changeset, as it's very recent. I'll also copy wikidata and wikipedia tags to the relation too and it's tempting to remove it from ways, wdyt? What about old_name:XX tags handling? Any other notable cases that I might have missed here?

reverted - changeset/177311794

needs reverting, misshaped :(

It's a bubbler - fixed here - changeset/175126468
thanks

Thanks for feedback, corrected here - #174156653

Figured, office=construction_company suits best.

Maybe office=estate_agent is more appropriate here? (But it'a large foreign real estate investment agency - not sure if it's a point of contact for *individuals*, hence unsure if it fits well with estate_agent as value).

My mistake, looked very much like a hotel from first glance when surveying, it's a estate developer indeed.

yes, my bad.