| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 139329392 by aepunavy @ 2023-08-02 06:25 | 1 | 2023-08-03 05:24 | Bienson ♦308 | Turning left from Heiliger Weg to Ernst-Mehlich-Straße seems to be allowed. New aerial and street imagery show a left turn lane. Maybe you wanted to restrict U-turns? But that's not what is mapped now. Or it might be restricted because of a construction? Then it shouldn't be added un... |
| 2 | 2023-08-03 13:01 | aepunavy | Hello Bienson,Thank you for reviewing the changeset and pointing out the issue. After taking into consideration the feedback from our drivers and cross-referencing it with Mapiliary streetview and Bing Maps Aerial imagery, I made the decision to restrict the left turn. However, in light of your ... | |
| 136293845 by aepunavy @ 2023-05-19 10:50 | 1 | 2023-05-20 16:53 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Hi, this edit has gone rather wrong.Firstly, and whilst the turn restriction is sort of correct, as in going from Langley Avenue to Abbey Lane you would not be allowed to turn right, but neither would you if coming from Abbey Rise. So the restriction would just need to be a normal via-node restr... |
| 2 | 2023-05-21 11:17 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136367650 | |
| 3 | 2023-05-22 10:47 | aepunavy | Hello trigpoint,Thank you for reviewing the edits and making the necessary corrections. We apologize for adding incorrect turn restrictions. Going forward, we are committed to exercising extra caution when adding turn restrictions to prevent similar errors from occurring again.Thank you agai... | |
| 92245417 by aepunavy @ 2020-10-09 15:28 | 1 | 2022-03-08 07:11 | map per ♦1,305 | Hi aepunavy,there is no Road connection for cars here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/857260157). All cars have to pay at the gate.As the Open Street Map is very accurate in Germany mapping Roads based on (outdated) aerial imagery and assumptions seems to harm the map. His is the third mapp... |
| 2 | 2022-03-08 08:21 | aepunavy | Hi,Thanks for reporting this to me. My sincere apologies for the error made. As rightly pointed, I have used the outdated imagery to make this edit and I will take this as a learning and make sure that this would not repeat again. Thanks for making the necessary changes. Best Regards,aepun... | |
| 116008923 by aepunavy @ 2022-01-11 06:15 | 1 | 2022-01-23 22:20 | SafetyIng ♦348 | Why do you have changed this to path? This way is created as way (the width allows to drive trough. I think this tagging is false. |
| 2 | 2022-01-27 07:51 | aepunavy | Hi, Thanks for flagging this point with me. I have made this as a path based on latest aerial imagery i.e Bing, in which the path seems to be unpaved with grassy patches. As there is no street view to check, I have modified based on available aerial imagery. Kindly let us know if this is right so ... | |
| 116066645 by aepunavy @ 2022-01-12 13:11 | 1 | 2022-01-12 16:36 | rempshaener ♦782 | Hello,I have removed the two "lift_gate", because the information is already available at the railway=level_crossing. There "crossing:barrier=double_half" was added (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1174644821 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/374458558). Additional &quo... |
| 2 | 2022-01-18 08:16 | aepunavy | Hi rempshaener, Thank you for reviewing my changeset and making the necessary corrections. I have added the lift gates based on streetview. Didn't check railway crossing attributes. I will keep this in mind for my future edits. Thanks once again, I'm looking forward to learn more from yo... | |
| 108016016 by aepunavy @ 2021-07-15 05:29 | 1 | 2021-07-16 21:04 | ndm ♦889 | This needs to be reverted - it's correct as is. |
| 2 | 2021-07-16 21:10 | ndm ♦889 | Ok, so this is correct -- no like the other times mapbox have editted this street. | |
| 105506377 by aepunavy @ 2021-05-28 17:48 | 1 | 2021-07-03 23:45 | GinaroZ ♦1,281 | Please be aware of the note tag that you missed, it's not a one way road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145981769 |
| 2 | 2021-07-06 13:58 | aepunavy | Hello GinaroZ, Apologies for the genuine miss from my end. I have missed checking the note and added the directions. Thanks for correcting my edit. Regards, aepunavy | |
| 94778002 by aepunavy @ 2020-11-25 13:32 | 1 | 2020-11-25 19:04 | ndm ♦889 | Reverting this - previous geometry matched Bing imagery well and didn't try to link roads that aren't linked. |
| 2 | 2020-11-27 07:40 | aepunavy | Hi ndm,Apologies for the misinterpretations and making the geometry misalignment. Thanks for checking into our edits and making the necessary corrections. Always happy to learn from the community.Regards,aepunavy | |
| 90694173 by aepunavy @ 2020-09-10 10:14 | 1 | 2020-09-16 02:07 | naveenpf ♦714 | Welcome to OSM India.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IndiaTo join OSM India Telegram click on.https://t.me/OSMIndia --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90694173 |
| 2 | 2020-09-17 05:49 | aepunavy | Hi naveenpf, Thanks for the response. we are delighted to be a part of #hotosm-project and looking for more opportunities to work with you soon.Regards, Navya | |
| 80995853 by aepunavy @ 2020-02-14 08:18 | 1 | 2020-06-07 18:24 | rempshaener ♦782 | Already my last change to these objects was caused by one of your colleagues. After another inspection on-site: it is still a road under construction. This is also clearly visible on all aerial photographs. Please do not change it again. Ich werde die Änderungen entsprechend meiner heutigen Kon... |
| 2 | 2020-06-10 04:29 | aepunavy | Hi rempshaener,Thanks for your time for checking into our edits. I have made the edits based on the driver feedback and available resources. It is really helpful that the local community is improvising our edits. I will take this inputs from the community and pass the same to my colleagues as well... | |
| 82716355 by aepunavy @ 2020-03-27 13:17 | 1 | 2020-04-09 11:30 | highflyer74 ♦2,447 | This part of the road is visible here https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.063153&lng=8.8996&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=bpwW48VmOg7DKqle0qV6LQ and has been mapped with a barrier=bollard since 2009. So routingwise this should have been no problem (means -> not passible by car anyway) a... |
| 2 | 2020-04-13 01:51 | ravsjith ♦18 | Hi highflyer74,replying on behalf of Aepunavy.Thanks for looking into our edit. Your suggestions are very valuable and we are continuously working to improve our editing quality as per community suggestions. Will also pass on this information to our internal team to avoid such edits.regards... | |
| 82041765 by aepunavy @ 2020-03-11 07:17 | 1 | 2020-03-11 20:28 | ndm ♦889 | "path" doesn't really help foot and cycle routing -- can you see if it can be better classified? |
| 2 | 2020-03-12 07:25 | aepunavy | Hi ndm,Thanks for checking into our edits. This edit was made partially based on the Driver feedback and available resources. We are not sure of creating any cycle/ foot path as there is no ground resources validating such edits from our end. It can be helpful if the local knowledge can improve ou... | |
| 3 | 2020-03-12 19:18 | ndm ♦889 | If you are changing the map based on incomplete data you should at least add a Map Note (note+ icon on the website) so that local mappers know that it needs a detailed survey! | |
| 4 | 2020-03-13 11:58 | aepunavy | Hi ndm,Thanks for the reply. As mentioned in the wiki "" highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately. The path may have any type of surface.This includes ... | |
| 5 | 2020-03-13 19:25 | ndm ♦889 | Unless you have a better mechanism to communicate with mappers in the locality that your changes are "best effort" and not from a survey, then I think you need to add a note.For example, is the path really called "Robin Place" -- is it signed, or left from some previous chang... | |
| 81338508 by aepunavy @ 2020-02-22 04:48 | 1 | 2020-02-23 11:25 | ndrw6 ♦77 | Hi aepunavy, is "Private Earth Watch Imagery" the same as DigitalGlobe's EarthWatch? If so, did you get a permission from DigitalGlobe to use it for improving OSM? |
| 2 | 2020-02-24 10:15 | freebeer ♦1,598 | while it's not obvious from the changeset lack of `host' i did click the username to confirm this is an amazon edit. i'm quite sure amazon has special permission or a licence to use imagery that is not generally available to normal osm mappers, and while it has been the subject of di... | |
| 3 | 2020-02-24 12:20 | ravsjith ♦18 | Hi ndrw6, Replying on behalf of aepunavy. Thanks for looking into our edits. This edit is partially based on the GPS traces of our delivery partner. Please go through the link https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amazon_Logistics#Editing_Process for a detailed understanding of the editing process.... | |
| 4 | 2020-02-24 19:51 | ndrw6 ♦77 | Thank you freebeer and ravsjith. I didn't realise it was an Amazon changeset. I have no problem with using proprietary imagery with permission of the copyright holder.I am a bit surprised DigitalGlobe is OK with using their imagery for improving OSM but this imagery is not available for bro... | |
| 76937753 by aepunavy @ 2019-11-12 03:24 | 1 | 2019-11-20 13:09 | Carto'Cité ♦1,143 | Hi,The turn restriction don’t concern Place Paul Verlaine (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/56123540). Looking at this recent picture (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/pj8Z0jy8k5m2ojvSarOPxw) the turn restriction concern Rue Chéreau (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10588190) and it... |
| 2 | 2019-11-21 06:23 | aepunavy | Hi Carto'Cite,Thank you for looking into my edit. This is an honest mistake. I will take this as a leaning for my future edits and will be more careful while adding data in OSM. Let me know in case you have any other suggestion. Will be happy to learn from the local community.Best Regar... | |
| 3 | 2019-11-21 10:00 | Carto'Cité ♦1,143 | Hi Aepunavy,Thank you for your response. No problems with mistakes :)Feel free to ask if you have any question. If you contribute a lot, maybe you should consider using JOSM even if iD is great :)Best regards.Charles from Carto’Cité | |
| 70763587 by aepunavy @ 2019-05-30 10:24 | 1 | 2019-07-05 15:07 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello,It looks like the addition of the motor_vehicle=yes tag here has the same problem as was previously pointed out at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71701289 . Can you have a look at where you've added motor_vehicle=yes elsewhere without evidence and remove it?Best Regards,An... |
| 2 | 2019-09-09 08:05 | aepunavy | Hi Andy,Thanks for looking into my edit. As suggested by the community, we ran the overpass query and modified the motor_vehicle=yes tag to unspecified. Please let me now in-case it is still left somewhere. Apologies for a delayed response.Regardsaepunavy | |
| 3 | 2019-09-29 19:07 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Thanks | |
| 74391397 by aepunavy @ 2019-09-12 12:26 | 1 | 2019-09-12 14:08 | tux67 ♦1,945 | aepunavy - what is your local knowledge about the access restrictions for the service roads you added? As you connected 2 major roads, routers might point drivers to acess the service road as a public road while they seem to run on private /company groundBrtux67 --- ... |
| 2 | 2019-09-12 14:34 | aepunavy | Hi tux67,Thank you for looking into my edit. I had made this edit based on the GPS traces of our driver partner. I could not find any evidence of this road being private as it lacked street imagery. I understand your concern and I am completely aligned with your view on the problem associated wi... | |
| 3 | 2019-09-16 14:07 | tux67 ♦1,945 | As long as there is no real local confrimation, that this street is open to general access, I would add a respective fixme note to the way connecting the streets! --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/74391397 ... | |
| 72299786 by aepunavy @ 2019-07-16 11:15 | 1 | 2019-07-16 16:15 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Thanks for fixing these. |
| 72299574 by aepunavy @ 2019-07-16 11:10 | 1 | 2019-07-16 11:13 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello aepunavy,Thanks for this.Best Regards,Andy |
| 70791075 by aepunavy @ 2019-05-31 03:00 | 1 | 2019-05-31 14:28 | tux67 ♦1,945 | Hi, are you familiar with the German access right restrictions for highway=track? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway=trackUsually a router would not lead a normal car this way. By adding motor_vehicle=yes you overruled this default. On the other hand you created an "island&q... |
| 2 | 2019-05-31 14:37 | tux67 ♦1,945 | Ignore my comment about the island .. you marked it all up to the street to motor_vehicle=yes .. but the overall issue remains --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70791075 | |
| 3 | 2019-07-02 16:08 | suhebm ♦4 | Reverting the "motor_vehicle=yes” attribute added by our team member as per the request from community.Regards,Suhebm | |
| 71701289 by aepunavy @ 2019-06-28 10:00 | 1 | 2019-06-28 15:37 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello, What was the source of the access change here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 02:02 | aepunavy | Hi Andy,The motor_vehicle tag was added based on our delivery partner GPS traces which is verified with the vehicles present in the satellite imagery. Based on these sources the motor_vehicle = yes tag was added to these roads. As per community feedback on not to add "motor_vehicle=yes"... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-02 11:48 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello,Thanks for that.Best Regards,Andy | |
| 70465248 by aepunavy @ 2019-05-21 06:36 | 1 | 2019-05-22 13:38 | LivingWithDragons ♦53 | Please be more specific in what imagery you used too add these service roads. --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70465248 |
| 2 | 2019-05-24 05:51 | yaswap ♦68 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We always use the latest imagery available in OSM to add road segments. And we do have an internal image source of Digital globe. Editor might have missed to mention the source. we will look into it and update the editors to add image source as well.Rega... |