| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 108134739 by Bolt010 @ 2021-07-16 19:02 | 1 | 2023-07-13 07:03 | yxoc ♦47 | Hello, why are you placing a gate right on a cycleway running in parallel to a road? Do you know that place? You indicate as source an imagery severvice, so I guess not. |
| 129292353 by Bolt010 @ 2022-11-23 18:00 | 1 | 2022-11-25 12:00 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | Whilst not 'normal', there is no legal restriction on U turns here.Turn restrictions should reflect only legal restrictions.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2022-12-01 07:50 | Bolt010 | Hello Trigpoint,Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will analyze your suggestion and proceed with edits accordingly. | |
| 129294134 by Bolt010 @ 2022-11-23 18:56 | 1 | 2022-11-25 12:20 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | Again why?There is no turn restriction here.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2022-12-01 07:47 | Bolt010 | Hello Trigpoint,Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will analyze your suggestion and proceed with edits accordingly. | |
| 129291675 by Bolt010 @ 2022-11-23 17:39 | 1 | 2022-11-25 12:36 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | I have reverted this edit. There is no physical separation so mapping two ways is wrong and your change has broken pedestrian routing.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2022-12-01 07:30 | Bolt010 | Hello Trigpoint,Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will be vigilant going forward. | |
| 129337979 by Bolt010 @ 2022-11-24 17:33 | 1 | 2022-11-25 16:16 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | Again there is no legal turn restriction here. |
| 2 | 2022-12-01 07:24 | Bolt010 | Hello Trigpoint,Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As per your suggestion, reverted the edits accordingly. | |
| 129532849 by Bolt010 @ 2022-11-29 18:53 | 1 | 2022-11-30 13:58 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Rather than just saying "added restriction" can you explain what the reasoning behind adding it was? |
| 129338302 by Bolt010 @ 2022-11-24 17:44 | 1 | 2022-11-25 11:58 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | Why? It was correct previously.The physical separation does not cross Glenfield Road and there are not two sets of lights.This edit should be reverted.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2022-11-29 13:25 | Bolt033 ♦8 | Hi Phil, I am Alexandra and I would like to thank you for bringing this case into our attention. Bolt010 indeed made a mistake by not connecting node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10210327734 with the primary way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168942913. Before proceeding in editing the ... | |
| 129250678 by Bolt010 @ 2022-11-22 18:22 | 1 | 2022-11-25 16:12 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | This junction was correctly mapped before, what are you trying to achieve?There are no separated ways crossing the junction as you have mapped it.This edit needs to be reverted.Cheers Phil |
| 118523041 by Bolt010 @ 2022-03-15 18:40 | 1 | 2022-03-15 19:24 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Again, both older imagery and your Maxar imagery show this road is both ways (there is even a merge to right lane continuing from this onto Racianska street.So what is your point? Why did you single out these 2 roads in Slovakia and got the urge to mistag them? |
| 2 | 2022-03-16 12:11 | Bolt010 | Hi aceman444,Thanks for flagging, considering the way 826473239 (Legerského) was already tagged as oneway , singled out the connector segment as well. Will be more vigilant going forward. | |
| 3 | 2022-03-16 21:26 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | There is really no reason to assume a connector road would be oneway too.Also, the part of Legerskehohttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826473239 is actually bothways (I have fixed it now), so you are doing changes without properly looking at imagery and without knowing the state on the ground.... | |
| 4 | 2022-03-16 21:48 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | I mean things like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118544327 may be OK (there is no way traffic direction could change on that small segment), but here on Racianska there are many ways cars can drive and directionality of Legerskeho has no meaning on the connector road. You did not read Maxa... | |
| 118484190 by Bolt010 @ 2022-03-14 19:57 | 1 | 2022-03-15 19:19 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Hi, why do you introduce wrong data? If you bothered to check the history of the road, you would see I changed it no oneway=no based on survey. Also you claim you used Maxar imagery, where it is seen the road got added the opposite lane (compared to older imagery) to allow both ways traffic. So what... |
| 110846428 by Bolt010 @ 2021-09-07 09:22 | 1 | 2021-09-07 11:12 | zorglubu ♦340 | Hello,You added a tag motorcar=yes to a street with an access forbidden for motorcars, except for "destination". What is your source of information ? I presume that it is not "Maxar Imagery" as noted in the changeset ?Thank you, #Bolt, to answer the question, this is not ... |
| 2 | 2021-09-08 06:46 | Bolt010 | Hello zorglubu,Thanks for correcting, going forward will ensure such tags are not given to the ways with destination tags. | |
| 101120034 by Bolt010 @ 2021-03-16 12:09 | 1 | 2021-03-16 15:24 | Tomas Straupis ♦1,949 | No, this part is not oneway. |
| 2 | 2021-03-17 06:22 | Bolt005 ♦4 | Hello Straupis,Thank you for letting us know. we will be more vigilant going forward |