I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

#NameChanges

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, you have made numerous name changes, which included removing/modifying names and their map features. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

#NameChanges

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, you have made numerous name changes, which included removing/modifying names and their map features. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

#NameChanges

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, you have made numerous name changes, which included removing/modifying names and their map features. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

#NameChanges

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, you have made numerous name changes, which included removing/modifying names and their map features. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

#NameChanges

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, you have made numerous name changes, which included removing/modifying names and their map features. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

#NameChanges

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, you have made numerous name changes, which included removing/modifying names and their map features. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

Thank you for your response.

My initial assessment that this might be spam is based on the tagging you chose.
The name you assigned, the description, and your landuse tag are rather unusual.

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

Reverted by changeset/170635905

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

I guess this is #spam and should be reverted?

Hi, thank you very much for your detailed response and for sharing the link.

To your question: splitting ways (for example, to indicate parking lanes, different numbers of lanes, surfaces, or speed limits) is absolutely correct and often necessary. That by itself doesn’t “break history.” The issue arises when an existing way is deleted and replaced with a brand-new one instead of splitting or modifying the original geometry.

Here are your changes visualized for reference:
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=170505416#16/54.9706/73.3859
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=170505416

In particular, e.g. you removed:
way/203198889
way/103836373

and replaced them with new ways:
way/1422581905
way/1422581900
way/1422581901

Thanks for confirming. I understand why you removed it, the network=US:US tag made it look like an active route.

However, old highway alignments are often kept in OSM, just with corrected tagging (e.g. old_ref=*, name=Old US 131, and no network=US:US). That way, the history is preserved without confusion.

Would you consider restoring it in that or another appropriate form?