| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 186661109 by VLD317 @ 2026-07-30 18:28 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | kadiwa ♦149 | Please go and read what the tag crossing:continuous means https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:continuousAdding a separate way here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1546089427 is incorrect because the sidewalk continues uninterrupted.Btw I'm not being impolite because I wan... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | VLD082 ♦19 | Kadiwa,We are currently reviewing this changeset and the feedback provided. Thank you, VLD082 | |
| 186652844 by VLD317 @ 2026-07-30 15:50 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | kadiwa ♦149 | Hi again,one mistake from this changeset is that you disconnected these two streets from one another: way/3977786 and way/185395356After your changeset, they were only connected via a footway, which is not routable for general vehicle traffic.I fixed that. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | VLD317 | Hello kadiwa, Thank you for catching that and repairing it. I’ll try to be more careful to catch those before I upload them in the future. Happy mapping, VLD317 | |
| 184447865 by VLD317 @ 2026-06-22 20:03 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦551 | Hi! Please do not remove footway links. Here, you removed foot access to parking G1 from sidewalk. Thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | VLD317 | Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We had removed the link due to the presence of designated crosswalks that are separately mapped and which provide parking lot access. Since the link has been restored, we will not edit the feature further. Happy Mapping! | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦551 | Yes, Links are there so they are adding routes for paths people would really take, especially when detours are available but non-attractive. | |
| 184448939 by VLD317 @ 2026-06-22 20:37 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦551 | Hi! Please do not remove unmarked crossings, because your changes broke routing for pedestrian at this intersection. Crossings are needed for pedestrian to cross the street there, even if there are no marked crossings for foot traffic. Thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | VLD317 | Thank you for the follow-up and for considering pedestrian routing. Since you've already made the adjustments, we will not edit it further. Happy mapping! | |
| 183360066 by VLD317 @ 2026-05-29 14:54 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Jarek 🚲 ♦401 | Hi, thank you for your edits in Toronto. Can you point me to where this organized edit has been discussed, and/or the MapRoulette challenge description? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | VLD317 | Hello Jarek, Certainly! Here is the link for the Maproulette Challenge: Toronto Missing Crossing Ways: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/42238 Happy mapping! VLD317 | |
| 182354817 by VLD317 @ 2026-05-07 19:45 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | NE_SwampYankee ♦4 | Hi VLD317,I wanted to open a discussion about your edits to Clifton, specifically the nodes at a number of driveways. While it's a matter of debate in the larger community, from what discussion has been had there is an agreement among local Cincinnati mappers is that driveways and alleyways... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | VLD317 | Hello NE_SwampYankee, Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Our team was not aware of the local standards for these driveways/alleyways in Cincinnati; Could you please direct us to the relevant discussion threads? Best regards,VLD317 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | NE_SwampYankee ♦4 | Hi HLD317.This discussion was scattered across a number of interactions between individual mappers, however I was recommended to forward you to this thread on the OSMUS Slack team (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C6E4S4CQG/p1777661542940159?thread_ts=1777647840.892859&cid=C6E4S4CQG) for fur... | |
| 178782132 by VLD317 @ 2026-02-19 16:51 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | willkmis ♦233 | Hi the crossing you deleted is actually there, the street was recently repaved. Please don't delete crossings you can't see on aerials if they've been recently added. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | VLD317 | Hi willkmis, I apologize for my mistake. Thank you for catching that and re-adding the crossing! I will make sure to be more cautious going forward. Thanks, VLD317 | |
| 171418975 by VLD317 @ 2025-09-03 17:41 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,953 | Hi,With some of the crossings over cycle tracks parallel to the grove, you've removed some traffic_calming=table tags and changed some crossings from unmarked to marked.The crossings which have a table or hump are marked with a solid white triangle on their approach(es) (TSRGD diagram 1... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD157 ♦34 | Hi rskedgell, Thanks for your feedback on this changeset. I’ve made edits to resolve the issues you mentioned. These can be found in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171518684 . The tag crossing:markings=surface was removed from the cycleway crossings to prevent conflicts... | |
| 171379846 by VLD317 @ 2025-09-02 20:38 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,953 | Could you explain why you have added footway=sidewalk to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1041807718 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1041807716 ?These are not sidewalks. Not all footways in urban areas are sidewalks and the paths through the planted area between the two parts of Prospect ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,953 | Also, please don't tag links in the middle of complex junctions like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/655623536 as having sidewalks. They don't.I'm also curious as to why you're placing sidewalk=both and sidewal=no with sidewalk:both=yes and sidewalk:both=no respectively. Th... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Hello rskedgell, I appreciate the feedback. Our team has updated our guidelines for this region to account for both of these issues.In regards to the sidewalk=* vs sidewalk:both/left/right=*, in other areas we have preferred to use the sidewalk:both/left/right=* format because it allows us to b... | |
| 171378281 by VLD317 @ 2025-09-02 19:58 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,953 | I see that you have set crossing:markings=dashes on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1421344450Pedestrian crossings over public roads in the UK do not use dashes as crossing markings. They may use dots, a traffic sign authorised as TSRGD diagram 1055.1.Some cycle only or segregated cycle cr... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Thank you for your help with these features, I will keep this feedback in mind. -VLD317 | |
| 171380882 by VLD317 @ 2025-09-02 21:12 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,953 | I see that you replaced crossing:markings=zebra;dots with crossing:markings=dots on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5933198168I distinctly remember the TSRGD diagram 1055.1 dots being there on every one of the hundreds of occasions on which I have walked or run across that zebra crossing. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | I apologize for my mistake here. I see you have updated the tags already. Thank you for your feedback and insight into this crossing. -VLD317 | |
| 171382039 by VLD317 @ 2025-09-02 21:58 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,953 | Thanks for deleting those. They wouldn't have been particularly helpful for pedestrian navigation. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | No problem! Please continue to reach out with any local conventions you may be aware of as this is very helpful-VLD317 | |
| 171049283 by VLD317 @ 2025-08-26 20:14 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Wynndale ♦68 | As I previously posted to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171046562 what are you doing? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Wynndale ♦68 | Have you followed the [organised editing guidelines](https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines) | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | woodpeck ♦3,516 | Dear VLD317, the London community is concerned about someone with no apparent local knowledge adding separate sidewalks which is controversial (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613/104). Please discuss the matter on the UK forum before continuing with an... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | woodpeck ♦3,516 | Made https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18679 after continued mapping without response. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | RVR015 ♦30 | Hello everyone - In my validation process, one of the issues is the separately mapped sidewalks along residential roads. In our guidelines, we have iterated (based on local mapping practices) these sidewalks should not be mapped separately. Our team is in the process of reverting the sidewalks. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | RVR015 ♦30 | We do have this OSM TM project shared on our organisation wiki, and I'm more than happy to follow-up in the OSM UK channel. | |
| 171046562 by VLD317 @ 2025-08-26 19:04 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Wynndale ♦68 | What are you doing? |
| 170075529 by VLD317 @ 2025-08-06 19:28 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Benoît C MdP ♦220 | Bonjour VLD317,Attention encore une fois, les photographies aériennes ne sont pas à jour concernant l'allée du Bord de l'Eau. Par conséquent, tu as fait des modifications qui dégradent la qualité de la donnée et pourraient être ass... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Hello Benoît C MdP , I apologize for the oversight and appreciate your assistance in addressing these issues. Thank you. -VLD317 | |
| 169415006 by VLD317 @ 2025-07-24 18:14 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Udarian ♦975 | kerb vertexes should not be placed on sidewalk centerlines |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Thank you for the response on my recent changeset. I reviewed my edits and made adjustments to the curbs where necessary. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. | |
| 169413446 by VLD317 @ 2025-07-24 17:42 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Udarian ♦975 | kerb vertexes should not be placed on sidewalk centerlines |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Thank you for the response on my recent changeset. I reviewed my edits and made adjustments to the curbs where necessary. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. | |
| 167274120 by VLD317 @ 2025-06-06 15:51 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦551 | Hi! Alignment was perfect before this changeset. Please do not realign unless you use official geodesic data to verify. Thanks! I will revert the changeset. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Hello ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy, I apologize for disrupting the alignment. Thank you for letting me know. -VLD317 --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167274120 | |
| 166894388 by VLD317 @ 2025-05-28 21:35 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Udarian ♦975 | I have already asked members of the Facebook team to stop splitting crossings off here as it is one continuous sidewalk all the way around and thus a single sidewalk way, no crossings. Please stop doing this. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Hello Udarian, I apologize for splitting the crossings. As I am relatively new to the team, I was not aware that this location was a special case. Our team will take steps to prevent similar modifications to the features here moving forward. Best regards,VLD317 | |
| 166893921 by VLD317 @ 2025-05-28 21:16 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Udarian ♦975 | I have already asked members of the Facebook team to stop splitting crossings off here as it is one continuous sidewalk all the way around and thus a single sidewalk way, no crossings. Please stop doing this. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Hello Udarian, I apologize for splitting the crossings. As I am relatively new to the team, I was not aware that this location was a special case. Our team will take steps to prevent similar modifications to the features here moving forward. Best regards,VLD317 | |
| 166527729 by VLD317 @ 2025-05-20 14:20 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | willkmis ♦233 | Hey, I reverted this change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166573750. I recently went through this intersection and it's been reconfigured from what appears on aerial imagery. In other words OSM was more up-to-date than the available imagery. In the future it might be good to check ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | VLD317 | Hi willkmis, I apologize for the incorrect edit here. Thank you for making the correction and letting me know, I will keep this feedback in mind. VLD317 |