piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2021-07-13 06:09:52+00:00): De routerelatie heb ik omgelegd via het nieuwe stuk.  
Getagd als G11 fietspad. Mogen speedpedelecs hier dan wel komen? 
Een eind verder bij het Borns Spoorpad kloppen de routedelen niet.
Daar zal nog naar gekeken moeten worden.
Is die oversteek Slachthuisweg Wegtersweg er nog steeds voor fietsers? 
Gr eggie
dvdhoven (2021-07-13 11:10:28+00:00): De F35 heeft voor het grootste deel een G11 als bord met onderbord "Speed-pedelecs toegestaan"
Dat is hier in Hengelo ook het geval tot aan het einde in Borne
eggie (2021-07-13 11:47:57+00:00): Ahh.. thanks..   Ik laat evt. aanpassen even aan lokale mappers over.
MVG
eggie
dvdhoven (2021-07-13 11:56:40+00:00): Met de routerelatie F35 is niets mis.
Daar staan gewoon gaten in omdat die stukken nog ontbreken
eggie (2021-07-13 11:59:53+00:00): Duidelijk...
steltenpower (2021-07-13 14:11:22+00:00): Volgens mij zijn speedpedelecs op hele F35 toegestaan, zie o.a. https://www.borneboeit.nl/72547/nieuws/speed-pedelecs-mogen-op-de-f35
eggie (2021-07-13 14:19:14+00:00): Yep.. duidelijk
Hier was leesvoer waar de F35 ook wordt genoemd https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63557
Blijft een beetje grijs gebied. Neem aan dat je dan hier 30km/u mag rijden.
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-07-13 06:31:23+00:00): Dag steltenpower..
Hier heb ik bicycle=yes verwijderd.
Dat hoeft niet op een fietspad.
Conform de aansluitende fietspaden heb ik de tussenstukken aangepast van G11 naar G12a (bromfietspad)  Stukjes G11 ertussen kunnen haast niet kloppen . (Driehoek kruising) Hoewel  rond Dordt zit ook een klein stukje G11 in een G12a snelfietspad. 
Je edits http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=107864789
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-07-13 06:37:38+00:00): In de routerelaties van de F35 zitten nog wel gaten. Daar zou iemand met ervaring nog eens naar kunnen kijken.
puma515 (2021-07-12 22:47:34+00:00): also die unbefestigten feldwege. kenn mich vor ort aus ist nicht nach sat bild gemappt
aceman444 (2021-11-16 00:13:38+00:00): Zdravim, preco spajat 2 razcestniky do jedneho (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/307943981) a potom zmiesat operatorov? Kazdy z nich je clenom inych tras a mozu mat rozne cislo 'ref', tak ako aj tu.
aceman444 (2021-11-16 00:14:23+00:00): Dokonca maju vyrazne odlisne 'ele', aj ked su vedla seba.
aceman444 (2021-11-16 00:17:22+00:00): Aj nazvy su rozne.
aceman444 (2021-11-16 00:18:09+00:00): No je mi jasne, ze na Ortofoto to nie je vidiet, ale potom ako ste vedeli, ze je tam SCK.
mirec240 (2021-11-16 10:29:27+00:00): Zdravím, nikdy nespájam na mape dva existujúce rázcestníky. V tomto prípade sa rázcestník KST na mape nenachádzal, bol tam len rázcestník SCK, ktorý som nechcel ˝prerábať˝, keďže do rázcestníkov SCK nezasahujem (teda ich do mapy nepridávam ale ani neodstraňujem). Zmiešanie správcov trás (KST, SCK) nie je novinka, videl som to v mape už viackrát v úpravách od rôznych OSM užívateľov. V tomto prípade je názov rovnaký a to, či je nadm. výška 340 alebo 349 je irelevantné, bežnému používateľovi mapy to bude k ničomu, keďže v jednom prípade ide aj tak o chybný údaj, keďže ako spomínate, smerovníky sú pri sebe. Sám som mnohé nesprávne nadmorské výšky na smerovníkoch KST opravoval, lebo aj KST v tom má chyby a v niektorých prípadoch tieto nadmorské výšky nanovo aktualizuje (napr. minulý rok sa to robilo v pohorí Tribeč).
mirec240 (2021-11-16 10:33:07+00:00): Zároveň si dovolím vás opraviť, 2435/3,0 nie je referenčný kód. 2435 je číslo hlavnej trasy prechádzajúcej týmto rázcestím (modrá) a 3,0 je kilometrový údaj od začiatku trasy v obci Naháč po rázcestie Katarínka, rázc. Akonáhle sa však zmení priebeh trasy (napr. predĺži o 0,2 km na 3,2 km) a KST si túto zmenu opraví v databáze, údaj 2435/3,0 už nebude správny. Číselné kódy na smerovníkoch uvádza len KČT, KST nie.
mirec240 (2021-11-16 10:40:28+00:00): Len pre zaujímavosť, KST uvádza na smerovníku Fráterka, poľ. chata nadm. výšku 190, skutočná nadm. výška je 380. Dali by ste do mapy 190, len preto, že je to uvedené na smerovníku alebo by ste tam uviedli skutočnú? A rozlišovať Katarínka, rázc. a Katarínka, rázcestie je zbytočné podľa mňa...

Ešte doplním, že úpravy máp robím len na základe toho, čo som si prešiel a overil v teréne, teda posledný komentár ohľadom ortofoto nie je na mieste.
aceman444 (2021-11-17 19:02:57+00:00): Ortofotomozaiku ste uviedli ako jediny  zdroj (alebo ho skor automaticky uviedol iD), ziady iny zdroj ste neuviedli, takze len na to som narazal. Ak ste tam boli, treba uviest survey. Cislo 2435/3,0 je na razcestniku uvedene, takze ci je spravne alebo sa stane nespravnym neviem, ale zadavame co je na nom uvedene. To iste plati aj pre nadmorsku vysku. Ja neviem ci je spravne 340 alebo 349. Vy to viete? Podla https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost sa pri razcestniku do 'ele' uvadza co je na nom nepisane (zrejme bez ohladu na to nakolko je to spravne). Cize, ano, mali by ste dat tych 190m v priklade. A ci je Katarínka, rázc. a Katarínka, rázcestie to iste neviem posudit, technicky nie je, semanticky mozno ano, ale piseme co je na mieste. Co ked SCK ma vo svojej databaze Katarínka, rázcestie a ked budeme mat v OSM "Katarínka, rázc." tak sa to bude stale javit ako odlisne. Nech si to riesia ini odbornici, co sa tomu venuju.
mirec240 (2021-11-18 20:09:34+00:00): Je tu predsa source: survey, neviem čo všetko by som tu mal ešte uviesť, ortofoto používam primárne preto, lebo tam vidno niektoré chodníky a lepšie sa zakresľuje/opravuje priebeh turistickej trasy. 

K údaju 2435/3,0: pokiaľ to takto robíte tak v tom prosím ďalej nepokračujte, ja takéto údaje naopak vymazávam, lebo ako vravím, nie sú správne. K príkladu uvádzam napr. Konské hlavy, smerovník z roku 1991: https://backend.freemap.sk/gallery/pictures/70601/image?width=1388 a smerovník z 2018: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3e0JFTrSaO76gRMHaI1gTmrfv0SI8hHHcXKAHXDs5mrPhORiN2au_g9KdoN2to36WaF9cdPppO4RFFl41oXLobl0fZLE7_TTaGkbnSRcwPp7vTEG3LL-u14J8R5j2ldgRTV4VLbhOj48mxwOvwnDb7b=w2814-h1876-no?authuser=0 Ani jeden údaj však už nie je správny, nakoľko trasa 0701 sa tento rok zmenila na úseku Spariská - Biely kríž a tak by bolo potrebné zakaždým tento údaj aktualizovať na všetkých smerovníkoch, kadiaľ prechádza trasa 0701 od Bieleho kríža až po Hornú Porubu. Ak by sa tento rok inštaloval nový smerovník Konské hlavy, bolo by tam iné číslo ako 45,5. Správny údaj ˝ref˝ môžete vidieť napr. tu: https://mapio.net/images-p/24474425.jpg (vľavo dole je údaj 4416/2000, pričom ˝ref˝ predstavuje 4416), tento údaj sa však už na smerovníkoch cca od roku 2006 neuvádza a neviem, či je ešte stále v platnosti takéto číslovanie.
mirec240 (2021-11-18 20:14:01+00:00): K ˝ele˝, s tým čo píšete ja nesúhlasím, neviem prečo by sme mali prenášať chyby z terénu aj do OSM, ja osobne sa riadim heslom, že nie vždy treba natvrdo opisovať všetko, čo je napísané na rázcestníku. Tie sa aj tak postupne vymieňajú a niektoré chyby sa časom opravujú. Podobne je to aj v prípade rázcestie a rázc., skratka rázc. je použitá najmä pre lepšiu čitatelnosť, podľa mňa je však rozlišovanie takýchto detailov vysoko nepodstatné.
aceman444 (2021-11-24 14:52:27+00:00): Mate pravdu, to source=survey uple dolu som prehliadol, to sa ospravedlnujem.

Cislo razcestnika v tvare 4416/2000 som teda este nevidel a hlavne na obrazku je uvedene na jednotlivych sipkach, nie na tabulke s nazvom hore, takze by ma vobec nenapadlo, ze by to malo byt jeho cislo (ref.).

S vymazavanim 2435/3,0 ale nesuhlasim. Ako vzniklo to cislo nie je dolezite (ci je tam zakodovana vzdialenost alebo nie). Asi aj KST ho povazuje za dostatocne stabilne, ked ho na razcestnik pise. Ako jedinecny retazec na identifikaciu, ci stojite pri spravnom razcestniku je to postacujuce a moze to v OSM byt. Ak sa trasa predlzi, malo by byt povinnostou KST vsetky razcestniky vymenit, ked sa rozhodli na ne pisat vzdialenosti. Ak sa to stane, moze sa to opravit aj v OSM. Ale ak to cislo 2435/3,0 nie je cislom razcestnika, tak to samozrejme do 'ref' nepatri a nebudem to tam davat. Len podla nejakeho zdroja som bol v tom, ze to identifikator je.

Rovnako je to s 'ele'. Podla wiki sa uvadza co je na tabulke. Mozno to zase sluzi na identifikaciu, ci ste pri spravnom razcestniku. A kedze ja nemam tak presne zariadenie aby som rozlisil ci je spravne 340 alebo 349m.n.m. nemam dovod spochybnovat udaj od KST.

Je to asi podobna debata ako na fore, ci napr. pisat nazvy ulic aj s preklepmi, ak su tak uvedene na tabulke na mieste. Pre cudzincov by bolo lepsie napisat do OSM ako je na tabulke, aby vedeli, ze su na spravnom mieste. Len domaci budu vediet, ked to bude v OSM spravne, ze to je to iste ako vidia na tabulke. Su nazory pre oba sposoby pisania.
Kovoschiz (2021-07-13 06:38:35+00:00): Those keys are used for legal restriction. If they aren't in effect (especially if not signposted), don't add them. They aren't for physical accessibility. Use `smoothness=impassable`, instead of `bicycle=no`. `horse=no` is meaningless in HK.
StefanHRT (2021-07-13 04:18:48+00:00): Hallo a_d_s, Zeig mir bitte Straßen, welche covered=yes sind und nicht den Tag tunnel oder building_passage haben. Dein stetiges setzen von covered ist fehl am Platze, dies wurde Dir meines Wissens nach auch bereits öfter mitgeteilt. VG
felipeeugenio (2021-07-14 14:25:31+00:00): *fictional names
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107867132
cyton (2021-07-13 16:50:16+00:00): Hallo a_d_s, tagge doch bitte `traffic_sign=DE:250` anstelle solch einer Note mit dem Inhalt.
Insofern verbietet Zeichen 250 nicht den Zugang für Fußgänger, `foot=no`, muss separat beschildert sein.

Genauso ist doch vielleicht der Zugang für Landwirtschaft oder Fahrrad ausgeschildert, oder?
LG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107867273
Mashin (2021-07-13 02:40:36+00:00): Hi,
it's fine if the road leads to private houses. We just mark it as access=private, no need to delete.
mcccxxv (2021-07-13 10:42:15+00:00): I think you misunderstood my comment Mashin. I was just there.

After crossing the river, the connecting bit to Quinebaug Ave is no longer there. Instead there is a house built over what used to be a road. You can see that in the satellite image.
mcccxxv (2021-07-13 10:44:45+00:00): Instead, there is someone's backyard, all grown with grass, trees, & big wire fence blocking access.
Mashin (2021-07-13 14:00:52+00:00): Oh, got it! Sorry!
That makes perfect sense to get it deleted. Thanks for the on-site survey.
mcccxxv (2021-07-14 12:30:33+00:00): How to revert to the change I made? I see the road is still there.
Mashin (2021-07-14 13:11:05+00:00): I restored the road previously (sorry). 

If you want to have the road deleted you can either repeat your edit or revert my changeset #107868600 in JOSM (I can also do that if you want)
ElliottPlack (2021-07-13 17:45:07+00:00): Nice! What do you think about switching those slipramps to cycleway? That helps a bit with our PeopleForBikes score and is essentially what the ramps are now. It is assumed that all motorized modes are prohibited now, rather than having it be a link. I made the change based on how I recall it last time I rolled through there, see what you think. I'm taking the track home tonight and will take a look again.
pkoby (2021-07-13 18:33:13+00:00): I'm not sure about that. There really isn't any indication that it is accessible at all, by bikes or anything. Also, going from east to west on the northern one is not really safe at speed because of the angle of the plastic bollards on the west end. So it's not really a cycleway, it's just an old bit of road that bikes can use...
ElliottPlack (2021-07-13 18:48:36+00:00): This raised a good question that I thought to ask some colleagues at DOT what the intended use is. I'd thought cycleway based on how a similar thing was done here, near the Maryland Ave Track. I believe the goal is traffic calming either way. If we went back with some sort of road feature, I'd mark it as hgv=no and all the rest, but I don't know enough about data users to know if they'd respect those. We could ask some of the local Lyft and Amazon mappers to weigh in. Here's example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/461263392
pkoby (2021-07-13 19:06:27+00:00): I mean, I'm not opposed to tagging it as a cycleway as that is its current function, it just seems awkward. Same thing with Lake Montebello, and how its outer road is tagged as a cycleway right now: it's a little strange, but it's probably the best tagging scheme at the moment.
ElliottPlack (2021-07-14 18:36:30+00:00): The montebello case is a special one with the COVID-19 related closures. The city had converted a number of streets to "slow streets" and closed them but the program was not popular and all of the restrictions have been lifted EXCEPT for Lake Montebello. There has always been a segregated section of that road for recreation but there used to be a section open to cars. Now that is closed to cars so we've got effectively two parallel cycleway/path loops. That may change once the Harford Road bridge is reopened... TBD.

For these slipways, I've raised the question on Slack and added some photos. I'm thinking it would be better to go back to the way you had it before, but I'd love to see what the community thinks.  https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1626287506192400
pkoby (2021-07-14 19:01:01+00:00): No worries about Montebello. I went out there and have seen what it's about. It's weird but makes sense as its mapped.

As for the slipways, I think the two short ones can be tagged as cycleways, but I checked out the longer one south of the Dell, and it's actually open to cars for parking (BMA staff, I think). I retagged it as a parking aisle, though just highway=service could work too. The little bit at the end connecting 29th and the slipway I've left as a cycleway.
ElliottPlack (2021-07-14 21:10:13+00:00): Thank you I saw that yesterday as well and meant to update it back to parking aisle so I appreciate the update. I even snapped a photo of the lot restriction to put in OSM :D

https://www.strava.com/activities/5623116671
ElliottPlack (2021-07-20 18:31:13+00:00): Do you have a source for the JFT Roland Ave route? Was that one I made? I can't find it listed on the official city map as a route, but the route wayfinding can leave some things to be desired too.
pkoby (2021-07-21 10:54:52+00:00): That was in there previously, yes, presumably by you.
DressyPear4 (2021-07-13 15:48:12+00:00): Olá, os elementos adicionados estão com tags inválidas, devem ser adicionadas conforme as regras do OSM
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Etiqueta
Certifique-se que esteja cumprindo regras de importação
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Import
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107867992
DressyPear4 (2021-07-13 15:51:35+00:00): Certifique-se também que estejam nos locais corretos e que não exista nenhum já no local para não ficar duplicado.
Essa edição foi revertida.
DressyPear4 (2021-07-13 16:01:29+00:00): Aqui uma descrição melhor do seu objetivo
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses
tekim (2021-07-13 13:26:33+00:00): Why do you say https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629588122 is highway=path, rather than highway=footway, footway=sidewalk?

Again, the sources you cite do not support the changes you are making.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107868107
iandees (2021-07-13 03:50:50+00:00): 👋
Canal des Pangalanes (2021-09-18 10:25:40+00:00): Hi boopington,

it's bogus to add the Q ID for the "Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia Railway" to a single way instead of creating a relation for the whole route and linking that to Wikidata.
boopington (2021-09-19 00:56:02+00:00): ??????!??
user_11418917 (2021-07-13 04:54:14+00:00): Why did you remove this road name in Syria?   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121578429/history
BCNorwich (2021-07-13 08:35:18+00:00): Hi, Inspire Medics seem to be a  credit and finance company office rather than an educational institution office. Features added to OSM must be verifiable, please see:- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

I think this is an online-only facility, the tagging is misleading at best. OpenStreetMap is not a business directory. If your online facility does not have a physical presence then it may not be added to OSM. If it does have a physical presence - for example, if there is an office somewhere - then you can place an office=company POI where that office is.

If you add further tags then understand that these tags will describe that physical location, i.e. the office. Do not, for example, add a tag that implies 24/7 opening hours just because the web site is open 24/7 - only add such a tag if the office is open 24/7. Same with any tags that would describe what you are selling; do not add descriptions that advertise, the link to your wesite will surfice.

Under no circumstances must you add advertising copy ("World's finest XY", "Premier ABC supplier", "For all your XYZ needs"); this has no place in OSM and should be deleted.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2021-07-26 06:48:44+00:00): No response so I've removed the advertising description and indication that the public can visit this location.
crosstato (2021-07-13 03:12:55+00:00): *it appears to be a private service road belonging to fire/ems station now.
Sowmya2021 (2021-07-14 10:51:20+00:00): Hi nguyenhx123vn / hn77,
In this changeset, the primary road is changed to residential and few nodes have been disturbed could you share your thoughts on why these changes were made and realign the road as per the imagery. 

Also observed that you have mapped a lot of invalid roads with higher classification, modified names, waterways and more, which do not reflect on the ground reality and need to be avoided on OpenStreetMap. 
https://osmcha.org/changesets/107767601
https://osmcha.org/changesets/107808343
https://osmcha.org/changesets/107870990
https://osmcha.org/changesets/107876971

please visit the  https://learnosm.org/ for knowing the best practices.
Reach out to us for more questions. 

Regards
Sowmya
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107870131
Supaplex (2021-07-14 12:29:39+00:00): reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107980355#map=11/14.6230/109.0050
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107870131
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-07-14 07:51:35+00:00): Hello nguyenhx123vn. Hope you are doing great. Would you mind sharing the imagery source of "highway=primary"? 
Thank you
**
Xin chào nguyenhx123vn. Hy vọng bạn đang làm rất tốt. Bạn có phiền chia sẻ nguồn hình ảnh của "highway = primary" không? 
 Cảm ơn bạn
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107870519
MoiraPrime (2021-07-18 02:23:10+00:00): "OPENRAILWAYMAP FEATURE - DO NOT REMOVE"

Does anything related to this feature even exist anymore? an embankment or the like? If not, then this should not be in OSM. OSM is for mapping what's on the ground.... if it doesn't exist anymore it shouldn't be in OSM and should be instead in some place like OpenHistoricalMap
Natfoot (2021-07-18 05:59:17+00:00): Hello ironmatic1, 
Unfortunately things get deleted in OSM from time to time. Things that can be classified as history often get deleted and mapping for the renderer is not allowed. If you want this sort of data to persist the best option is Open Historical Map. 
I'd be happy to help in any way. I edit railroads here and on Open Historical Map.  
I just added this line in OHM. Please create an account and add the details. 
Best regards, Natfoot
ironmatic1 (2021-07-19 08:02:28+00:00): Hi, I understand what you mean, but this is why I think this should be allowed to stay:
1) I've seen a whole lot of precedent for pretty well obliterated rail lines being mapped as abandoned/razed on OSM all over America.
2) Abandoned/razed railway features are rendered exclusively on ORM and have absolutely no conflictions with or contribution to clutter on any other map. Being able to see abandoned lines is part of what makes ORM a complete and useful resource for rail enthusiasts.

ironmatic1
Natfoot (2021-07-19 23:33:43+00:00): Thanks Ironmatic1 to answer your questions. 
1) These will eventually be deleted as they are outside the scope of OSM. 
2) Mapping for the renderer is not allowed.   

And we have OHM to take up where we want to save this sort of old data.  Believe me I have been down this road.  I have vouched for all of the above. We can chat about this further on Discord and/or Slack. 
Best Regards, Natfoot
AkuAnakTimur (2021-07-13 04:36:30+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap. Just a friendly reminder not to use or cross-check with map products from Google.
A67-A67 (2021-07-15 20:36:15+00:00): The correct highway tag for a busway is highway=busway, see the wiki page of this approved tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbusway

So this changeset changes the correct highway tag to highway=service.

The rendering problem on the OSM Carto map is known by the developers: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4226
A67-A67 (2021-07-15 20:39:05+00:00): Because this reason, I've reverted this changeset and thereby I've restored the correct highway tag.
tjburne (2021-07-15 22:24:07+00:00): Hi, I have just gone through this with a different user on the South East Busway. Is there any reason you NEED this set to "Busway" - it stops our software from working, and given we work in Transport and Main Roads (TransLink) to plan the buses we require this to work on our software. 

Thanks
A67-A67 (2021-07-15 23:34:23+00:00): Hello,

In the past the tag highway=service was used on busways, because there wasn't a better tag. This can be considered more as a workaround than proper tagging.

To resolve this, the tag highway=busway was proposed at the start of this year. This tag was approved in April, so it's the correct tag for busways for that time on. 

These busways clearly meet the definition stated on the page of highway=busway, so they are supposed to be tagged that way, not with the former workaround highway=service.

Software using Openstreetmap data should be following the definitions in the Wiki. This page clearly states that bus=designated is implied for highway=busway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbusway

The problem therefore seems to be in the planning software, not the data in Openstreetmap. Therefore it's supposed to be resolved there, not by changing the Openstreetmap data.
tjburne (2021-07-15 23:42:35+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for that, I understand this as it was only 2 months ago the same thing happened with a different user - I've seen all these articles. Until the rendering is supported it really needs to be left alone - as you may see the SEB has notes on it to leave them be until it is supported. We are trying to plan for a major network change and when these keep being changed it messes up our bus route alignments affecting our plans/costs etc. 

Can I ask why this needs to be changed now? Can this not wait until it is fully supported? 

Thanks
A67-A67 (2021-07-16 07:48:27+00:00): Hi,

This change is fully supported by Openstreetmap, which is the database. It was published on the changelog page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changelog

Third-party software, including OSM Carto, which is just a map that is featured on the website of Openstreetmap, not Openstreetmap itself, and the software you're using, should be updated to support new features.

Of course deprecated features can stay in the database after a change, because nobody has updated the feature. However in this case the highway tag had been updated to busway. This change incorrectly reverts this to highway=service. So a correct tag is being changed to a deprecated tag. That shouldn't be done. 

The problem isn't whether this should be changed now, the problem is that a correct tag is changed to an incorrect tag.