| Changeset |
No. |
Date |
Contributor |
Comment |
|
| 46335873 | karitotp | Hi fidcastro, you added a website link to this highway. Can i know why the highway have this type of tag? Thank youKarito |
|
| 49562692 | karitotp | Hi aslanosm; You changed a tag of this feature (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49001179/history), but according the satellite imagery, It does not appear to be a park, could you please share the source for this change? ThanksKarito |
| aslanosm | Hi Karito,Thanks for your support in OSM editing.I pass next to this area very frequently (the road Myasnikyan avenue). And there a lot of green area and trees. So I thought that if I tag as grass, wood or forest it will not be correct. That is why I tagged as park. If I made mistake kindly ad... |
|
| 49522443 | karitotp | Hi Marelie, welcome to Openstreetmap. Could you please confirm if this feature (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/500373471/history) is a dam? according the satellite imagery, it looks like a lake or pond. Thank you Karito |
| Marelie | Hi KaritoI do not reside within the area, as such I assume it could be a pond. |
|
| 49534163 | karitotp | Hi Herr Kramer!, thank you for contributing to map. Could you please confirm if this natural water (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/500471728/history) currently is there? ThanksKarito |
|
| 49358811 | karitotp | Hi Garpul, thank you for contributing to the map.There are a line and a node, both tagged as a valley that are intersecting between them, we should conserve only one of them or do a relation and include all those tags into it. Could you take a look on it please. Thank you.Karito |
|
| 49337642 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. You added a water body that is not visible on the satellite imagery, could you confirm if it is permanently there? Thank you |
|
| 49313227 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. I cannot see in the satellite imagery the park that you added, could you confirm if it is currently there? Thank you.Karito |
|
| 49314969 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. You deleted a building that is visible on the satellite imagery. Can I please know the razon? |
| Kuschba | This building does not contain flats nor does it have an official postal address. In order not to be mixed up by parcel services... |
|
| 49139536 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap and thank you for contributing. You added buildings that has incorrectly shape according the imagery, could you please take a look again and fixing them. Also confirm if the water canal exists there. ThanksRegards |
|
| 49094498 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. You added a park at a node, could you confirm if this is really a park, if so, you should add the park as an area. Thank you.regards |
|
| 49093653 | karitotp | Hi Dalibor32, welcome to Openstreetmap. You added an area and a park over a building, according the imagery i dont see any park there, could you fix it please.Regards |
|
| 49145824 | karitotp | Correct changeset comment : Mapping turn-restriction in NYCCorrect source : Bing/Mapbox, Street level imagery |
|
| 49146238 | karitotp | correct changeset comment : Mapping turn-restriction in NYCcorrect source : Bing/Mapbox, Street level imagery |
|
| 49045091 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap and thank you for contributing to map. You changed a school tag for a leisure, but according the imagery that is a building. Could you please confirm if this is really a leisure? ThanksRegards. |
| André Breda | It is a building, dedicated to indoor sport practice. I'm not sure what the correct classification is. Looking through the list it seemed like the most fitting description. |
|
| 48922012 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. Could you please confirm is this is a park, it looks like more a leisure=pitch.Regards |
|
| 48888505 | karitotp | Hola, bienvenido a Openstreetmap. Agregaste varios parques en esta área, pero de acuerdo a la imágen satelital no todos se ven como parques, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Green_space_access aquí puedes encontrar más etiquetas relacionadas a áreas verdes.Salu... |
| 51114u9 | @karitotp es una mala interpretación de «área verde». desde el municipio no hay mucha información de su forma de clasificar.al no conocer la función, yo mapeo inicialmente en landuse=grass (visto como espacio público).otro error es el nombre a u... |
|
| 48830983 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. You have added a park over some buildings, could you please confirm if currently this is a park? Thanks.Karito |
|
| 48841096 | karitotp | Thank you for contributing to map. You added a garden within a pitch area, could you please confirm if this is a garden or a pitch area? ThanksKarito |
|
| 48889380 | karitotp | Hi, Thank you for contributing to map. You modified some names, but them do not match with wikidata. Could you please share the source that you have used to update these names? |
| TuanIfan | Hi @karitotp, Thị xã Dĩ An is the full name of the town of Dĩ An. I suggested renaming it to this full name in order to make it in line with other admin boundaries done before in this country. You can see similar places like "Quận Thủ Đức", which can also be referred ... |
|
| 48882424 | karitotp | Hi, Thank you for contributing to map. You modified and add some names in english, but according to wikidata on most of them the previous value of name:en was correct. Could you please share the source that you have used to update these name:en?Regards.Karito |
| Maturi0n | Hello!The names I added to the map were actually used on OSM for years and were changed only recently. The previous name:en in Transnistria all were a transcription of the Russian spelling (which is used on the ground in this region). Those transcriptions are also used by the local government. Wik... |
|
| 48881063 | karitotp | http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48883119. Please, take a look here too |
|
| 48883119 | karitotp | Hi, thank you for contributing to map. You added park tag to sport areas, could you please confirm if them are parks too? |
|
| 48810011 | karitotp | Hi, thank you for contributing to map. According to the imagery, this area does not look like a park, may be this place is a museum and the park is all green area that is around.Regards.Karito |
|
| 48768885 | karitotp | correct comment: adding deleted object again |
|
| 48761607 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. You added two parks and their name in a node, could you confirm if these parks currently exist? |
| nammala | It looks like the parks doesn't exist on the Imagery. Could you please confirm the edits you have made. OpenStreetMap is the real map of the world. Make sure you add valuable data to the map not fictional data.Best Regards,nammala |
|
| 48626510 | karitotp | Hi, thanks for contributing to map, you changed some scrub areas to parks, could you confirm if is correct, because according the satellite imagery these do not look like to be parks.Regards |
|
| 48619381 | karitotp | Hi welcome to Openstreetmap, you removed building tag and added a "leisure=pitch", but according to imagery, this looks like as a building, could you confirm if the change was correct? Regards |
|
| 48572593 | karitotp | Hi, Welcome to Openstreetmap, you changed school tag to a park, according the satellite imagery looks like as a school POI, maybe there is also a park that can added as polygon.Regards |
| Ehutchison2005 | The school closed in the late 1980s. The the building was turned into a church, then a senior center, and has now been vacant for two years and has been turned into a park. The building is set to be demolished this summer and the green space expanded to its former footprint. |
| karitotp | Hey again, thank you for the details about the changes that have occurred on this area.Happy mapping! |
|
| 48545655 | karitotp | Hi, Thank you for adding data. You added parks, some of them is over a building according the satellite imagery, would you please confirm if this is really a park?Regards |
|
| 48561748 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap and thank you for contributing.Could you please improve the shape of the park boundaries? Also there are landuse = forest tagged over this area that cannot be verified with the satellite imagery, could you please confirm if they currently exist?Regards |
|
| 48531486 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap and thank you for contributing. You added many ditches and parks (as nodes and as polygons) on this area, i cannot verify them by satellite imagery, could you confirm if currently those exist? Let me know if you need any help.Karito |
|
| 48535911 | karitotp | Hey EkIsDieWolf, Welcome to Openstreetmap and thank you for contributing.Could you confirm if the playground and the park are currently there? Regards |
| EkIsDieWolf | Hi Karitotp,Yes, I was there recently, and can confirm the playground and play park are there. |
|
| 48282090 | karitotp | Hi Vic2, While I was working on this area, I found that you added some parks that I can not see on the satellite imagery. Could you confirm if these are really parks? RegardsKarito |
|
| 48423280 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap. You added a park on a node, could you confirm if this park exists. |
| rcsec | Its not a park. Its a quarry area. Sorry for a wrong tag. |
|
| 48296015 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap!You added a park on a residential area. Could you confirm if it is really a park? Karito |
|
| 48390859 | karitotp | Hi ichan28, welcome to Openstreetmap!You added a park that does not visible in the satellite imagery. Could you confirm if this park currently is there? Karito |
|
| 48373433 | karitotp | Hi Lee O'BrienWelcome to Openstreetmap, could you confirm if it is really a park? If so could please improve its geometry.Regards |
|
| 48229537 | karitotp | Hi, welcome to Openstreetmap!Could you take a look again here, and confirm if this is a park, acording the satellite imagery may be just a garden.Regards.Karito |
|
| 29736262 | CloCkWeRX | This unfortunately seems very offset from GPS traces (see improve-osm.org) and imagery (which aligns to the improve-osm.org gps traces. Is it worth moving everything in one go? |
| karitotp | 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... |
|
| 47877303 | tux67 | Hi karitotp,any specific reason to label this as natural=scrub? these are artificial grass areas inside a city park. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3DgrassBRStephan |
| karitotp | Hi Stephan,According to the satellite imagery and according to the relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6266866) that looks more like a natural=scrub and not as a park as it was labeled before, besides it is inside another park.Regards. |
| tux67 | 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 ... |
| Athemis | 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... |
| karitotp | Thanks for your comments. You are right, local knowledge is better, please feel free to change the tag with whatever is more convenient.Regards, Karito |
| tux67 | ok, thanks .. Athemis will pick up the topic with the local user community.BRStephan |
|
| 47760814 | karitotp | Hey Rita H, welcome to Openstreetmap!Can you confirm if these gardens are there now? Actually, they do not match the satellite imagery.Regards. |
|
| 47639725 | chillly | 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. |
| karitotp | 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 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47639516 |
|
| 47466654 | karitotp | Hi nkv!, can you please take a look to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67140043/, this wood area currently is there? thanks |
| nvk | Good point. I think that's from an old and bad DCGIS import. I've deleted it here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47520982. |
|
| 47148294 | karitotp | Hi AjBelnuovo!While I was working on this area, I found that a landuse residential (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253716762/history) and a natural wood are in the same place. Can you take a look and fix acording which one is more apropiate for this zone? Thanks |
| AjBelnuovo | Eu não removi a área residencial , porque há inúmeros locais semelhantes misturando dois tipos de áreas.Para mim aquilo marcado como área residencial , deveria ser marcado como bairro ou vizinhança. |
|
| 46405692 | karitotp | Hi Harry Cutts, thanks for contributing to Openstreetmap.You added name tag to these buildings, but them looks like addr:housenumber tag, if so, you can correct them according the wiki ttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addrRegards. |
| Harry Cutts | Hi karitotp,The name tags were added in a previous changeset (https://osm.org/changeset/19867053 ). The numbers appear to be one less than the lowest numbered apartment in the building, and don't seem to correspond to house numbers. I'm assuming they all share the house number of the whole compl... |
|
| 46341851 | karitotp | Mistake in the comment, the correct comment is: Added missing streets. Other source are; Mapbox Satellite and Mapbox Telemetry |
|
| 45631040 | karitotp | Hi HandsomeJC!Welcome to Openstreetmap and thank you for contributing.You added a footway along a park in a single stroke, which generated overlaps in some parts and kinks in others (I've fixed them), you could avoid them by tracing each path, you can also improve the alignment.Regards |
|
| 45756499 | karitotp | Hi DarthValor06, welcome to the Openstreetmap. I see that you added natural tag to this object, but them doest not match with the satellite imagery. Please can you explain about this changeset?Regards |
|
| 45777219 | karitotp | hi sefabaris!You added objects without any tags and water objects on this area, any reason to add these object that not visible on the satellite imagery?Regards. |
| sefabaris | Hi karitotp,In this area, there are two ornamental pools of mosque. You may not have seen them on satelite imagery, because in some periods of the year pools are empty. If you check out Google Earth imagery, you can see these.Regards. |
| sefabaris | *check from |
|
| 45449405 | karitotp | hi sefabaris!I see that you added many objects without any tags in this area, also you added many buildings that generate crossing building error. Can you explain what is the reason for these editions? and please check these changesets too. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41937428http... |
| sefabaris | Hi karitotp,If you talk about grid lines, they are being used as guide lines. When mapping of this area is finished, these lines are will be cleaned.Besides, I'm trying to do 3D building to 3D maps and I am overly beginner about this. I apologize for my mistakes.Regards. |
|
| 45987339 | karitotp | Hi Andrew Mondragon!Welcome to OpenStreetMap! I noticed that with this changeset, you have added lakes, parks and footways on this area, and you deleted a service highway. But those object that you added are not visible in the satellite imagery. May I know the reason for this please.Regards. |
|
| 45543040 | karitotp | Hi jvrjvrjvr!Welcome to OpenStreetMap. While I was working on this area, I found that you added footway and a lake that not exist in the satellite imagery, so I fixed them.Regards. |
|
| 45582571 | karitotp | Hey J Martinez Jr!I reverted this changeset to remove the fictional footways.Regards. |
|
| 40332259 | karitotp | Hi jennifercrespouniguajira!, thanks for contributing to OSM. While I was working in this area, I found that you deleted some buildings. Some special reason why you deleted them.Regards! |
|
| 45457681 | karitotp | Hi this_is_just_a_plug!, thanks for contributing to OSM. While I was working in this area, I found that you added some object such as grass, park and playground. I improved the geometry of the leisure=grass, but I dont know if are you sure that the park and playground is there now, if it is ok maybe... |
|
| 45253752 | oba510 | 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! |
| karitotp | 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 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45298416). Thanks again.Best, |
|
| 45280231 | oba510 | Hi, why did you extend San Jose Avenue through a building and construction site? |
| karitotp | 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 |
|
| 44964878 | karitotp | Hi Sparks, thanks for contributing to OSM. While I was working in this area, I found that you added a natural=water in a way, but I think that tag is for a multipolygon which already exists in the same place. |
| Sparks | Yeah, I may have doubled up on that tag by accident. I've been trying to fix the Patuxent River ever since something changed and OSMAND doesn't render the waterway any longer at higher zoom levels. I don't see the problem with the Potomac River which is similarly tagged. |
|
| 41418326 | karitotp | Hi AleBMThank you for contributing to OSM. While working in this area, I found you deleted some highways that according to your comment are on a private property. However, why not adding the `access = private` tag instead of deleting them? |
|
| 37716211 | karitotp | Hi Nate_WesselThank you for contributing to OSM, while working on this area, I found you deleted some highways which clearly exist based on Bing satellite imagery. So did you delete them for any special reason? |
| karitotp | Also this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37716174 |
| Nate_Wessel | You might have noticed that much of this area is a mess of unedited TIGER imports whose tags bear little relation to reality. I think I probably deleted something that was not a residential road but was tagged that way. |
| Nate_Wessel | I feel like there are bigger fish to fry here... look just a little to the west to see what I mean. |
|
| 38226700 | Paul_012 | Reverted by changeset 42049445 because the edit introduced layer conflicts. |
| karitotp | Hey there!Thank you for having fixed the conflict since you contribute to improving the map. |
|
| 38209776 | naoliv | The proper fix here was to remove the "tunnel" key, instead adding a "layer = -1" |
| karitotp | Hey there!Thanks for your feedback. The correction is in this [changeset](https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41373960). |
|
| 39105061 | SomeoneElse | Hello again,I'm afraid you've missed the "big picture" here again. The immediate edit prior to yours to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/110068049/history was a newbie one that caused a fair few other problems (including removing lots of names from the South Carolina relation).It's ... |
| karitotp | 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... |
|
| 38478559 | AnkEric | 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... |
| karitotp | 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 ... |
|
| 40933373 | SomeoneElse | 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... |
| karitotp | 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. |
| SomeoneElse | Thanks. In changeset comments please also do try and explain what geographical features you actually changed, why, and based on what source. |
|
| 33923014 | karitotp | Hey Matt1993;I've found your edits where you added turn lanes but it does not match with satellite images also the number of lanes does not match with turn:lanes, maybe it is a local knowledge. |
|
| 35265050 | Jeffrey 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. |
| karitotp | Hey Jeffrey;I realigned the road using GSI Japan Satellite (ort) , but I've already [reverted] (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39861887) my changeset. Thanks for your feedback. |
| Jeffrey 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... |
|
| 38478696 | Владимир К | hey! please, add relations just like there http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38478696#map=18/55.73418/52.42480if you add shared nodes on such junctions! |
| karitotp | 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. |
|
| 37770374 | Владимир К | Hello! I see, you added nodes 4055312665 4055312664 and so on. They are right for validator, but they make routing wrong.For example http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=55.74396%2C52.39203%3B55.74417%2C52.39199http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osr... |
| karitotp | Hello!I was fixing highway intersections that aren't connected, but I've already reverted my changeset on 38393541 .Thank you for your feedback. |
| karitotp | This is the link of my reverted changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38393541 |
|
| 37906145 | aceman444 | 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... |
| karitotp | Hi aceman444,Thanks for your feedback and fixing the wrong junction. I was working on connectivity errors using [to-fix](http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix) and did not realize the missing junction was intentional. So I'll be more careful in these case. Thanks again. |
| Rub21 | 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 ... |
| aceman444 | 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. ... |
|
| 36017408 | karitotp | There is a mistake of type: crossing building.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3897176114/history |
|
| 36017018 | karitotp | There are some buildings with mistake of type: crossing building. Could you check out? |
| ediyes | Done!!Thanks for the review. |
|
| 36019836 | karitotp | There are some buildings with mistake of type: crossing building, could you check out? |
| ediyes | Thank you for the feedback. Here is my change, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36112270 |
|
| 36005481 | karitotp | There are some building with mistake of type: crossing building. Could you check out? |
| jinalfoflia | Thank you for the feedback. I have corrected the errors. Here is the changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36213142 |
|
| 36002623 | karitotp | There is a mistake of type: crossing building.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3896055468/history |
| ramyaragupathy | Corrected it @karitotp. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36108577 |
|
| 36005730 | karitotp | There are some buildings which are in overlappinghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/386314048/history |
| saikabhi | Deleted and edited the overlapping buildings:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/386327054/history |
|
| 34234590 | Rub21 | Test, podría responder este mensaje ni bien lo reciba.Gracias. |
| karitotp | Recibido :) |
|
| 33915929 | TrulsBekk | Try to avoid change sets that span entire continents. |
| karitotp | Thank you for your observation TrulsBekk , I'll be careful in my changeset. |
|
| 33549289 | MikeN | 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. |
| karitotp | "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. |
| MikeN | 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... |
| karitotp | 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. |
|
| 33275926 | Peter 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. |
| karitotp | 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 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33300928) and left a note(https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/413223) to someone from ... |
| EdLoach | 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. |
| Peter 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. |
|
| 32629932 | aceman444 | 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... |
| karitotp | This was an accidental edit mistakenly removing bridge tag and I just reverted it. Thank you for reporting! |
| aceman444 | 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. |
| karitotp | Thank you to jump on this changes, good to know that all is fine there. |
|
| 32764627 | SomeoneElse | For info I've added a note at http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/402115 suggesting a local survey - what's there now is clearly wrong. |
| karitotp | Thanks you! |
|
| 32706500 | FTA | I can assure you this is a one way road. |
| karitotp | This was my oversight. I see you have reverted my change - thank you. |
|
| 32683135 | Yorvik 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). |
| karitotp | I fixed my change. Thanks for your observation.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32698254 |
|
| 31853851 | orson | I'm curious why you split this road into two oneway streets and why they have different names? |
| karitotp | Hi orson, thanks for pointing this out, the name has been fixed in this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31987976It is common practice to trace divided highways as separate oneways for more accurate routing. More information on the wiki. |