Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-04-26 03:41:42 UTCCloCkWeRX This unfortunately seems very offset from GPS traces (see and imagery (which aligns to the gps traces. Is it worth moving everything in one go?
22017-04-27 23:38:27 UTCkaritotp Hi CloCkWeRX,
That seems to be one of my first editions in OSM, i am wondering if the imagery have been updated for that area or if I used a different source, because I do not understand which was the reason for the offset from the imagery.
Anyway, thank you for notifying me about this. I see that...
12017-04-19 10:46:40 UTCtux67 Hi karitotp,

any specific reason to label this as natural=scrub? these are artificial grass areas inside a city park.


22017-04-19 18:00:57 UTCkaritotp Hi Stephan,
According to the satellite imagery and according to the relation ( that looks more like a natural=scrub and not as a park as it was labeled before, besides it is inside another park.
32017-04-19 18:47:35 UTCtux67 Regarding the Park inside a Park you're correct and this change recent change seemed to be entered by a new (Pokemon?) mapper and is wrong.

Nevertheless the previous and now again used natural=scrub is wrong here as well.

Please tell me how you would tag a man made, short cut lawn inside a ...
42017-04-19 20:57:43 UTCAthemis Hi all,
to give some insights from someone who literally just lives some minutes away from that place: The "Volksgarten" is a man-made park, though designed to be close to nature. Imho is perfectly fine to just tag it as leisure=park. As far as I can tell, the natural=scrub relation, orig...
52017-04-19 22:24:06 UTCkaritotp Thanks for your comments. You are right, local knowledge is better, please feel free to change the tag with whatever is more convenient.
62017-04-20 14:08:43 UTCtux67 ok, thanks .. Athemis will pick up the topic with the local user community.

12017-04-19 04:56:58 UTCimperialmog I went in and added a few more things for you and to set it based on what standards are for OSM. Went and mapped the subdivision boundaries since i'm familiar with it based on my knowledge of the area.
12017-04-11 16:53:19 UTCchillly Hi,

You have deleted a 'network capture area'.

Do you know what a network capture area is? There are others, why did you delete this one? I want to know if the other are useful or not.
22017-04-13 22:31:20 UTCkaritotp Hi Chillly,
I dont know exactly what is this one, also I deleted it because the area does not match with the satellite imagery.
I saw that other edits have also been flagged by community -
12017-02-23 15:42:57 UTCkaritotp Mistake in the comment, the correct comment is: Added missing streets. Other source are; Mapbox Satellite and Mapbox Telemetry
12017-01-19 10:02:39 UTCoba510 Hi, the way you added here is actually a narrow mid-block alley, not a typical residential road. Such roads should generally be tagged as highway=service, service=alley. Thanks!
22017-01-20 22:53:38 UTCkaritotp Hi again, oba510!
Thank you for bringing this to my notice and pointing out the apt way of labelling of this road. I have fixed the tag in this changeset ( Thanks again.

12017-01-19 09:06:43 UTCoba510 Hi, why did you extend San Jose Avenue through a building and construction site?
22017-01-20 22:51:09 UTCkaritotp Thank you for the feedback. As the selective filters were on, I didn't spot this building under construction. Reverting this changeset to remove the road added through the building. Thanks again
12016-11-19 19:46:13 UTCMinh Nguyen This changeset turned a residential landuse area into a residential street area that covered an entire city. I reverted this change in changeset 43808341.
12016-09-11 20:04:59 UTCPaul_012 Reverted by changeset 42049445 because the edit introduced layer conflicts.
22016-09-15 20:51:39 UTCkaritotp Hey there!
Thank you for having fixed the conflict since you contribute to improving the map.
12016-08-10 18:33:35 UTCnaoliv The proper fix here was to remove the "tunnel" key, instead adding a "layer = -1"
22016-08-13 01:27:47 UTCkaritotp Hey there!
Thanks for your feedback. The correction is in this [changeset](
12016-08-06 12:01:56 UTCSomeoneElse Hello again,
I'm afraid you've missed the "big picture" here again. The immediate edit prior to yours to was a newbie one that caused a fair few other problems (including removing lots of names from the South Carolina relation).
It's ...
22016-08-08 19:21:25 UTCkaritotp Hey again Andy!
You are completely right. We should take care about the quality of the data. However, both roads I've edited - Mullinax Circle and the private one - don't have deleted tags by the newbie mapper, but added tags. So I just moved the point that was causing the impossible angle. And tha...
12016-07-28 07:58:13 UTCAnkEric Feedback on Changesets 38478559 (karitotp), 39229604 (padvinder):
If adjacent highway have [bicycle=no], [foot=no], [agricultural=no] set, these tags should also be applied to the new highway segments.
Missing [ref=N244] on new highway segments.
5 bus-routes were using the previous roundabout. Al...
22016-08-01 19:21:33 UTCkaritotp Hey there!
I agree with you. We should definitely maintain the original tags and relations involved with the road, and that's what I did. If you can see the original tags before my edit was [highway=primary] and [oneway=-1], so I just split the road and added the necessary tags for a bridge to the ...
12016-07-22 09:37:20 UTCSomeoneElse Hi,
Please try and restrict changeset size to at least less than one continent.
Also, please do use meaningful changeset comments - "Fixing minor highways which overlap other major highways" and some random hashtag does not explain what geographical features you actually changed, why, a...
22016-07-22 14:31:31 UTCkaritotp Hi Andy;
I made a mistake uploading two changes in different areas, I will be more careful with these kind of changes.
Thanks for your feedback.
32016-07-22 17:06:38 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks. In changeset comments please also do try and explain what geographical features you actually changed, why, and based on what source.
12016-06-10 13:56:40 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks for fixing this. I've tried to explain the problem to the previous editor: .
12016-06-07 00:49:15 UTCJeffrey Friedl This changeset broke reality... the road had been precisely laid out (by me) using data from the Japanese government, and now this update broke it and it's obviously wrong. This changeset should be reverted.
22016-06-07 20:14:02 UTCkaritotp Hey Jeffrey;
I realigned the road using GSI Japan Satellite (ort) , but I've already [reverted] ( my changeset. Thanks for your feedback.
32016-06-07 22:29:26 UTCJeffrey Friedl Cool, thanks, it now looks better. I'd sent (less curt) message to you via OSM describing the situation... the road had been moved since the GSI images were taken, and anyway, I use GSI road-edge data to help position roads very precisely. If it's a road in Japan I've modified, its position is lik...
12016-04-12 07:46:06 UTCВладимир К hey! please, add relations just like there
if you add shared nodes on such junctions!
22016-04-14 18:22:54 UTCkaritotp Hi! Thanks for adding those relations.
I'm fixing connectivity issues. I don't know this place, so I can't add relations. Thanks for your feedback.
12016-04-07 09:25:04 UTCВладимир К Hello!
I see, you added nodes 4055312665 4055312664 and so on.
They are right for validator, but they make routing wrong.
For example
22016-04-07 23:07:18 UTCkaritotp Hello!
I was fixing highway intersections that aren't connected, but I've already reverted my changeset on 38393541 .
Thank you for your feedback.
32016-04-07 23:12:29 UTCkaritotp This is the link of my reverted changeset:
12016-03-17 23:33:58 UTCaceman444 Hi. When you join roads like this, be sure it is actually possible to turn at the joins you have created (junctions). In this case it is not possible (the roads were intentionally not connected). So you have allowed incorrect routing at this junction. Please do not do that again if you do not know t...
22016-03-20 14:58:22 UTCkaritotp Hi aceman444,
Thanks for your feedback and fixing the wrong junction.
I was working on connectivity errors using [to-fix]( and did not realize the missing junction was intentional. So I'll be more careful in these case. Thanks again.
32016-03-21 14:50:42 UTCRub21 Hey aceman444- We are detecting all crossing highway issues in the world and we are fixing them, however why you left intentionally the crossing highways? that is not perfectly good for navigation, maybe it works but not completely fine. Also I saw the issue (junction) was fixed it by you, it looks ...
42016-03-22 20:48:53 UTCaceman444 Yes, I know crossing roads should have a common node to have a complete navigation. The roads were not joined to have a proper navigation atleast for normal cars (not caring about ambulances or so). The other (perfect) alternative was to join the roads but add the ton of turn-restriction relations. ...
12015-09-24 21:32:01 UTCRub21 Test, podría responder este mensaje ni bien lo reciba.
22015-09-24 21:45:46 UTCkaritotp Recibido :)
12015-09-09 19:20:10 UTCTrulsBekk Try to avoid change sets that span entire continents.
22015-09-10 13:55:28 UTCkaritotp Thank you for your observation TrulsBekk , I'll be careful in my changeset.
12015-08-24 17:44:29 UTCMikeN Hi, Thank you for the edit. This "Frontage Road" was removed many years ago, and most of it has grass or bushes growing on it. Since there are still traces, I changed it to type Track.
22015-08-25 14:18:39 UTCkaritotp "Hey there. Thanks for your feedback. As you told it's possible to see a road, but definitely it's not a highway=track, so I've changed it to a highway=unclassified.
32015-08-26 01:46:02 UTCMikeN
That area does not meet the definition of 'unclassified' in the Wiki, nor its common usage in North America (Roughly equivalent to 'residential' but without residences). Specifically it is no longer a public road, it is all on private land. I researched the public record before deleting it orig...
42015-08-26 14:08:47 UTCkaritotp thanks for the link , you are right according to the images that you sent me and the street classification corresponds more to be a highway = track .
I am going to change the tag to a highway=track.
12015-08-12 08:35:30 UTCPeter Mead Thank you for improving this road. However, it would have been better to change the existing way rather than delete it and add a new one. We've now essentially lost the history of it.

Also, your changeset says "aligning roads" but you haven't changed the alignment.
22015-08-12 21:11:45 UTCkaritotp Peter Mead, I've been working on impossible angle roads, I did not remove the road,
I have splitted this road , it should generate other new road.
I reverted my change ( and left a note( to someone
from ...
32015-08-13 08:10:44 UTCEdLoach With the reversion and the comments on the note it is clearer what was done. I've edited it, perhaps replicating what was done before.
42015-08-13 08:40:30 UTCPeter Mead karitotp, I didn't say you removed the road I said you removed the way. A revert wasn't really necessary as I was just letting you know about something that you may not have realised and that you might wish to do slightly differently in the future.
12015-07-14 17:22:03 UTCaceman444 Hi, I do not see you changing any oneways in this changeset so what does the changeset comment relate to? And yes, that oneway on the start of the bridge is a dead-end, a blocked branch on the bridge so it does not help much fixing it in any direction. Looks like somebody misplaced the barrier=block...
22015-07-22 13:08:52 UTCkaritotp This was an accidental edit mistakenly removing bridge tag and I just reverted it. Thank you for reporting!
32015-07-26 19:43:57 UTCaceman444 Well, I already fixed it after writing you and your revert has now broken the segment completely. There are only nodes without any way joining them. So I reverted your revert 32778070. Everything should be fine there now.
42015-07-30 16:16:18 UTCkaritotp Thank you to jump on this changes, good to know that all is fine there.
12015-07-23 23:30:14 UTCSomeoneElse For info I've added a note at suggesting a local survey - what's there now is clearly wrong.
22015-07-24 18:14:52 UTCkaritotp Thanks you!
12015-07-18 03:55:26 UTCFTA I can assure you this is a one way road.
22015-07-21 13:15:28 UTCkaritotp This was my oversight. I see you have reverted my change - thank you.
12015-07-17 21:37:34 UTCchillly Another crap, remote edit by a Mapbox person.

Please STOP making these WRONG remote edits without visiting the site. Why not send me a message asking if there is a problem rather than maaking work for me to correct this?

i will revert this.
22015-07-20 22:07:44 UTClxbarth This was reverted by @chillly here
12015-07-16 23:27:39 UTCYorvik Prestigitator This road is one way, why have you removed the oneway tag from part of it??
It is the exit from the underground part of the college carpark built a year or two ago (the underground part has not been surveyed yet).
22015-07-17 13:58:00 UTCkaritotp I fixed my change. Thanks for your observation.
12015-06-15 01:09:59 UTCorson I'm curious why you split this road into two oneway streets and why they have different names?
22015-06-16 21:04:31 UTCkaritotp Hi orson, thanks for pointing this out, the name has been fixed in this changeset
It is common practice to trace divided highways as separate oneways for more accurate routing. More information on the wiki.
12015-06-15 01:22:01 UTCorson I'm curious why you split this road into two oneway streets and why they have different names?
29 changeset(s) created by karitotp have been discussed with a total of 68 comment(s)