OSM changeset discussions of Moovit Team

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
29657650 by Moovit Team @ 2015-03-22 14:11	1	2017-03-27 11:11	zstadler ♦1,094	Way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445888463 has no tags. What is it?
	2	2021-07-11 11:59	zstadler ♦1,094	Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50250480
42652806 by Moovit Team @ 2016-10-05 09:50	1	2017-03-27 11:10	zstadler ♦1,094	Way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445888463 has no tags. What is it?
	2	2021-07-11 11:59	zstadler ♦1,094	Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50250480
69749166 by Moovit Team @ 2019-04-30 19:34	1	2019-05-01 09:21	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	Hello, Here you've joined an indoor underground footway that had been added at "level -5" to the road above. This seems a bit odd - what was the source of this change? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2019-05-01 09:26	Derick Rethans ♦156	I've reverted this, as this was an incorrect change. The paths already connected correctly to the underground tube platforms, and do indeed, not touch the road at all (As they're 80 meters underground!).
64615210 by Moovit Team @ 2018-11-18 09:44	1	2019-04-22 10:43	Sanniu ♦581	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/645904167 have no tags, can you set right tagging, please?
63122505 by Moovit Team @ 2018-10-02 12:17	1	2019-02-01 22:02	Essin ♦93	In this changeset, a bus platform was extended to be twice as long as in reality (which can be easily checked on Mapillary) and furthermore it was tagged as a ford (???). I have reverted it.
66399580 by Moovit Team @ 2019-01-17 15:42	1	2019-01-18 05:01	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	In this changeset you've joined https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370293494 with an underground parking road. This seems unlikely. You've had problems with this sort of thing before (see some of the comments at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=1190212 ). Can yo...
	2	2019-01-23 22:32	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	No response, so I've reverted this. @Moovit Team - whenever we see implausible edits like this where you don't reply to questions we'll revert them. Please reply to the other questions that you have been asked at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=1190212...
62635516 by Moovit Team @ 2018-09-16 13:23	1	2018-09-19 18:59	Essin ♦93	Route 70 was recently rebuilt, so the aerial imagery is not up to date. Please be careful when you notice things that don't fit the aerial imagery.
61041800 by Moovit Team @ 2018-07-25 06:07	1	2018-08-02 08:54	Sanniu ♦581	You changed only the name tag, and left all other name:* tags untouched. Please do a good work and fix all tags, otherwise this data is very hard to use...
55288982 by Moovit Team @ 2018-01-09 10:28	1	2018-01-09 21:11	phypere ♦5	What does "private address" mean exactly? It's not like it's hard to infer that Paul Kleestraat 63 is right between Paul Kleestraat 61 and 65.
	2	2018-01-09 21:53	eggie ♦42,299	This address is in de BAG data. https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=paul%20kleestraat%2063&resultOffset=0&objectId=0344200000155277&geometry.x=130750.71240052&geometry.y=456836.7445982&zoomlevel=7&detailsObjectId=0344010000119101
	3	2018-01-09 21:58	eggie ♦42,299	reverted by changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55305305
55159148 by Moovit Team @ 2018-01-04 14:14	1	2018-01-04 15:17	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	Just for info, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Turkey suggests that foot=yes is the default on trunk roads in Turkey. If you've got an app that doesn't work without that tag, you probably need to fix the app.
53205305 by Moovit Team @ 2017-10-24 11:15	1	2017-10-24 21:51	SafwatHalaby ♦661	How come it's a cycleway with no cycle access allowed??
	2	2017-11-21 14:32	Moovit Team	What do you mean, which cycle-way?
	3	2017-11-21 16:09	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Please note that ways affected by this changeset are listed just below this discussion. You can click them to see the latest version, or you can copy the way id to https://aleung.github.io/osm-visual-history/ in order to see its history. As you can see (e.g. here: https://aleung.github.io/osm-visual...
	4	2017-11-21 16:18	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Also note most of my comments are a month old, many were fixed already...
53976655 by Moovit Team @ 2017-11-21 13:58	1	2017-11-21 16:16	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Let's look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415288268. highway=path means people, bicycles, and horses are allowed. foot=no overrides people. So, the final result is that only bicycles and horses are allowed. Is this intentional?
49045673 by Moovit Team @ 2017-05-28 13:20	1	2017-06-07 07:27	Sanniu ♦581	Now bus terminal has no exit at all, can you fix?
	2	2017-11-21 14:37	Moovit Team	What do you mean by that, can you please clarify?
	3	2017-11-21 15:02	Sanniu ♦581	There was a problem with one-way that block exit from the bus terminal. It seems fixed now.
26408892 by Moovit Team @ 2014-10-29 10:48	1	2017-06-18 11:28	Sanniu ♦581	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/76109075/ - is it כפר ערבי or כפר עברי?
	2	2017-11-21 14:34	Moovit Team	it is כפר עברי.
	3	2017-11-21 15:00	Sanniu ♦581	Fixed, thanks
52167699 by Moovit Team @ 2017-09-19 08:50	1	2017-09-19 09:46	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Those are weird access tags. If it's a plain footway. highway=footway should be enough. See this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Israel#Other_Road_Types
	2	2017-11-21 14:32	Moovit Team	Hi, Thank you for the update.
53400322 by Moovit Team @ 2017-10-31 16:27	1	2017-11-01 16:55	SafwatHalaby ♦661	This is totally redundant tagging and is not the first time you do it. why?
	2	2017-11-21 13:09	Moovit Team	I'm not sure I fully understand. can you please clarify?
	3	2017-11-21 13:22	SafwatHalaby ♦661	As with other changeset comments, I was probably talking about access=no combines with foot=yes. It seems I've fixed this one since then.
	4	2017-11-21 14:30	Moovit Team	Ok, Thanks.
53397135 by Moovit Team @ 2017-10-31 14:15	1	2017-11-05 13:27	zstadler ♦1,094	Hi, In this edit you have created several issue by moving nodes belonging to ways in the Weizzman Institute. For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53397135 was distorted because https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/909597094 was moved. . https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5114682...
	2	2017-11-07 07:54	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Moovit Team seem to never respond to changeset comments. Are they a single person or a generic account?
	3	2017-11-07 07:57	SafwatHalaby ♦661	For the record: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=1190212
	4	2017-11-07 08:01	SafwatHalaby ♦661	I've sent them a PM, in case that catches their attention.
	5	2017-11-07 13:25	zstadler ♦1,094	I've sent the following e-mail to the OSM Data Working Group: . Hello DWG members, . Over the last 3 years 13 changesets created by Moovit Team have been discussed with a total of 16 comments regarding potential mapping errors. The Moovit Team did not respond to any of them. . We would ap...
	6	2017-11-08 17:48	SafwatHalaby ♦661	The DWG have soft-blocked Moovit Team, until they read this message: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1620
	7	2017-11-08 17:52	SafwatHalaby ♦661	I suspect they've already introduced many weird access tags that were uncaught by our QA.
	8	2017-11-16 15:12	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	@Safwat The change at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53842443 suggests that "Moovit Team" might actually be reacting to comments, even if they're not replying in changeset discussions. Best Regards, Andy
	9	2017-11-16 20:56	SafwatHalaby ♦661	No, that's a generic description I've seen earlier too. And the post-block permissions still look weird and out of place with the normal way we tag footways or paths. The soft block had no effect whatsoever on behavior or communication as of now.
	10	2017-11-16 20:57	SafwatHalaby ♦661	For instance, this is totally confusing: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53842919 , why not just use highway=footway?
	11	2017-11-16 20:59	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Specifically, this way was edited after the block: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/541053309
	12	2017-11-16 21:06	SafwatHalaby ♦661	I sent the following "support request" from their site, in case they're somehow missing this: . Hello, your OpenStreetMap editing account, "Moovit Team", is not behaving according to community standards. Since 2014, several users asked questions about many different edits,...
	13	2017-11-19 11:55	Moovit Team	Thank you for your comments. Up until now, we did not received updates regarding discussion about our edits. In the following days we will check your comments and reply accordingly. Thanks for your understanding, Moovit Team.
	14	2017-11-21 12:19	Moovit Team	Hi Zeev, Thank you for the detailed comments. In this changes set i tried to change the name of the street and verify that the permissions are correct. If i make change in the graphic line you are more than welcome to reverse my changes. Sorry if the change I made caused you problems.
	15	2017-11-21 13:22	zstadler ♦1,094	Hello Moovit Team, Thank you for responding to the comments. . If I understand you correctly, you have modified the geometry of ways and location of nodes when you wanted just to change their tags. . IMO, it is an unreasonable conduct for a mapper with more than 1000 edits.
51529841 by Moovit Team @ 2017-08-29 07:18	1	2017-11-08 17:51	SafwatHalaby ♦661	These access tags make no sense.
	2	2017-11-21 13:04	Moovit Team	Hi, Why? I've added the walk permission after the bridge was fixed.
	3	2017-11-21 13:20	SafwatHalaby ♦661	access=no - No one is allowed. bicycle=yes - bicycles are allowed foot =yes - people are allowed. . Suggested tagging: bridge=yes, highway=path
	4	2017-11-21 13:21	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=no. "The access=no tag indicates that the road is not to be used by the general public"
53579657 by Moovit Team @ 2017-11-07 11:58	1	2017-11-07 17:06	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Those access paths seem confusing. Could you explain the access status of this footway, so that perhaps we can settle on better tags?
	2	2017-11-16 06:49	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Removed access tags in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53830517 due to lack of response
	3	2017-11-21 12:25	Moovit Team	Hi, I'm not sure I fully understand, can you please tell me about which tag are we talking?
	4	2017-11-21 13:04	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Hi, I am talking about redundant access=, foot=, etc, in many of your changes. Please see this visual history viewer for clarity: https://aleung.github.io/osm-visual-history/#/way/538975712
	5	2017-11-21 13:16	SafwatHalaby ♦661	...Or, if an osm link is better, see this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538975712 . Since it seems you intended to mark it as "for pedestrians and bicycles", I changed it to highway=path, rather than the previous multi-permission tags. Can you confirm this is OK?
53842919 by Moovit Team @ 2017-11-16 14:24	1	2017-11-16 20:58	SafwatHalaby ♦661	It seems you chose not to respond to the questions even after the soft block, and you continue to add weird footway permissions. Please communicate and discuss your edits before editing any further footway or path permissions.
	2	2017-11-19 13:40	Moovit Team	hi, this pathway was added after several users, who live in the area, complained this pathway was missing from our trip plan.
	3	2017-11-20 21:07	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Hi Moovit Team and thank you for replying. I believe you've added redundant permission tags throughout the years. The problem is not the addition of a pathway, it's the access tags. For instance, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/541053309, it has access=no, foot=yes, highway=path. . If...
	4	2017-11-21 12:07	Moovit Team	Hi, Thank you for your help. Can you please tell me if you change them to highway=footway will the permission be for pedestrians only? If so you can change is as you said.
	5	2017-11-21 13:06	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Yes. highway=footway is for people only, highway=path is for people, bikes, and sometimes horses. access=no means no one can access it.
	6	2017-11-21 13:12	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Just to be clear: It appears you often use access=no, foot=yes, highway=path. These are confusing because access=no contradicts foot=yes. Although the Wiki may have some rules for such tagging, it is much simpler to use highway=footway.
53579578 by Moovit Team @ 2017-11-07 11:55	1	2017-11-07 17:05	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Those access paths seem confusing. Is it a foot-only way?
	2	2017-11-16 06:50	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Removed access tags in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53830517 due to lack of response
	3	2017-11-21 12:20	Moovit Team	Hi, In order for me to check it. can you please tell me what is the exact name/ location of this path?
	4	2017-11-21 13:08	SafwatHalaby ♦661	As in the other cases, I'm talking about replacing highway=path + many permissions with simply highway=footway. . Exact object: https://aleung.github.io/osm-visual-history/#/way/538975196
	5	2017-11-21 13:09	SafwatHalaby ♦661	If an OSM link is more convenient: If an OSM link is more conve
	6	2017-11-21 13:10	SafwatHalaby ♦661	Sorry. Last comment got mangled. Repeat: If an OSM link is more convenient: https://www.openstreetmap.org-/way/538975196
	7	2017-11-21 13:10	SafwatHalaby ♦661	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538975196
33199555 by Moovit Team @ 2015-08-08 11:54	1	2015-09-05 14:16	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/364638827#map=15/37.7117/126.5505 has no tags on it. Is it a road, and if so sort what sort is it?
31867287 by Moovit Team @ 2015-06-10 11:17	1	2015-06-18 20:18	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	You've added "walk=yes" here, but do you perhaps really mean "foot=yes", if it is even required? It's hardly used at all - http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/walk#values . Although there's a Chilean entry in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:Internati...
31867210 by Moovit Team @ 2015-06-10 11:13	1	2015-06-18 20:09	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	Surely http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3585629293 is just a duplicate of the already existing http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123590126 ?
27772595 by Moovit Team @ 2014-12-29 10:03	1	2014-12-29 22:55	SomeoneElse ♦13,515	Is there any reason why you've joined the two sections of Evans Road at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/594317144 ? There's an access=no barrier there (also visible on the imagery) - has the situation on the ground changed?
26572153 by Moovit Team @ 2014-11-05 14:42	1	2014-11-06 21:24	Vincent de Phily ♦112	How was the train platform "problematic" ? Current status looks even more problematic, I'd be surprised if it refected reality. Did you survey, or just look at the osm data ?