| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 122887659 by amanura @ 2022-06-27 04:34 | 1 | 2022-06-27 16:14 | ma-rt-in ♦1,754 | Hallo,leider ist der von dir gesetzte tag falsch.Was genau soll den ausgedrückt werden?vg |
| 2 | 2022-07-01 06:34 | amanura | Hi,Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding. Thank you for looking into the change set. We have added access:delivery=no tag based on the driver feedback.We have started adding this tag based on OSM community suggestion. If you are local or going to survey this location please make... | |
| 3 | 2022-07-01 15:49 | ma-rt-in ♦1,754 | Hello,Well, the solution with the tag access:delivery is very unfortunate, as no data evaluator will usually evaluate it.Am I right in assuming that suppliers do not have access to this gate?See you at | |
| 4 | 2022-07-12 15:06 | amanura | Hi,As rightly pointed out, the Amazon delivery agents will not be allowed to pass through the gates tagged with "access:delivery=no". Please let us know if there are any concerns, we will be happy to help. Delighted to have this conversation with you.Regards,Amanura | |
| 5 | 2022-07-31 13:16 | ma-rt-in ♦1,754 | the key "access:delivery=no", which was set by you, simply does not fit into the OSM scheme for access. If then please use delivery=no and show that suppliers have no access. Or is it only Amazon that has no access here? | |
| 108285085 by amanura @ 2021-07-20 04:48 | 1 | 2022-07-12 09:14 | tomhukins ♦220 | You've tagged this road as highway=service which seems correct, but it's only attached to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5783065 which also has several other useful tags such as access=private applied to it. Do any of those tags apply to this road you added? It seems very likely that ... |
| 2 | 2022-07-12 15:01 | amanura | Hi,Apologies for the miss from my end. I have now added access = private to the service road based on your feedback as a part of change set (123525100). Happy to learn from you. Best Regards,Amanura | |
| 3 | 2022-07-13 18:10 | tomhukins ♦220 | Thank you. It would also be worth checking all of the tags used on way 5783065 to determine if any others seem suitable and adding those that do. | |
| 4 | 2022-07-18 04:45 | amanura | Hi,Thank you for your suggestion, on checking way 5783065, private access has been given by some other OSM user, and based on the resources available to us ,street view and aerial images, we don't find any changes. Would be happy to learn and make the changes if you find any. Going forward, ... | |
| 118722346 by amanura @ 2022-03-21 07:36 | 1 | 2022-03-23 00:42 | MacLondon ♦215 | Hi. I've changed Vallentin Road to oneway=no.The road has new a 'no entry' restriction at its west end (buses + cycles are exempted). This is already set as a pair of turn restrictions.General motorists can still enter at the east end of the road, travel westwards almost to th... |
| 2 | 2022-03-24 06:18 | amanura | Hi MacLondon, Thanks for pointing this out to me. I happened to miss checking the Turn restrictions and hence I have turned the street to a one-way. Apologies for the miss and thanks for making the necessary corrections. Always happy to learn from the community. Best Regards,amanura. | |
| 98277264 by amanura @ 2021-01-28 07:54 | 1 | 2021-08-06 13:27 | tomhukins ♦220 | In this changeset you have marked https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112587247 as "access=private" even though it also has "designation=public_footpath". As foot access is permitted to public footpaths, it seems you have mistakenly marked this as private. Can you explain the rea... |
| 2 | 2021-08-10 07:10 | amanura | Hi Tomhukins, Apologies for the misinterpretation of the access tag. I have added access=private based on the presence of a gate at the beginning of the entity. I might have missed designation=public_footpath tag which made my edits contradictory. I have now deleted the access= private tag as per ... | |
| 103602332 by amanura @ 2021-04-26 04:38 | 1 | 2021-04-27 13:58 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Hi, when mapping please ensure that you merge your mapping with existing mapping. In this changeset you have duplicated a way and given the impression that the right of way is a separate way, which it is clearly not.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173303585 should have been, realigned and exte... |
| 2 | 2021-05-13 10:30 | amanura | Hi Trigpoint, Sorry for the delay in response as i was in long leave.Thanks for looking into my edits. As the history dated 2012. I misjudged it to be an outdated edit. However, as I was unaware I have digitized a new service road as per Bing aerial imagery. Apologies for the genuine miss. I agr... | |
| 101486980 by amanura @ 2021-03-22 08:58 | 1 | 2021-03-23 19:46 | Supaplex030 ♦405 | Hey, this street has not yet been renamed - the renaming will take place in the next few months. The future name is already noted as "proposed:name". As soon as the renaming has finally taken place (the new street name can be read on signs), we will update the street name. Until then, I ha... |
| 2 | 2021-03-24 04:44 | amanura | Hi ,Thankyou for looking into our edit and explaining us the actual ground scenario.Regards,Amanura | |
| 97344415 by amanura @ 2021-01-12 05:37 | 1 | 2021-01-12 22:21 | ndm ♦889 | You really ought to look at the existing map data before you start editing and align your imagery with existing data. |
| 2 | 2021-01-12 22:22 | ndm ♦889 | I've redrawn the service roads | |
| 3 | 2021-01-14 03:08 | amanura | Thanks for looking into our edits. Apologies for the misalignment. It is good to see the community improvising our edits. Going forward, I will make sure to prioritize the vicinity over the clear imagery. Thanks for your suggestions. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 97357708 by amanura @ 2021-01-12 08:56 | 1 | 2021-01-12 21:35 | ndm ♦889 | You have connected a highway to a landuse -- maybe you could use a filter when you edit next time -- I have redrawn it. |
| 2 | 2021-01-14 03:07 | amanura | Thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies for the wrong connectivity. It is good to see the community improvising our edit quality. Thanks for the correction. Always happy to learn from the community | |
| 96289037 by amanura @ 2020-12-23 03:08 | 1 | 2020-12-23 03:16 | MxxCon ♦3,360 | Hi.per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks. "It is recommended to represent the sidewalk as a separate way, if the sidewalk is not just attached with a kerb but separated by a road verge or other barriers, to prevent routers from assuming free crossing". This sidewalk is attach... |
| 2 | 2020-12-24 10:13 | amanura | Hi MxxCon,Thanks for looking into my edit and the feedback on the right way of mapping this feature. I have reverted my edit as per your suggestion, I will consider this learning in my future edits.Regards,Amanura | |
| 89549551 by amanura @ 2020-08-18 05:13 | 1 | 2020-08-19 15:34 | JodaStephen ♦59 | Hi! I note that you are using Bing imagery and the iD editor. Unfortunately, the lovely new Bing imagery is inconsistent with previous imagery and also with reality. A such, realigning roads like this is tending to make things worse not better wrt the real world. In the area New Malden / Wimbledon /... |
| 2 | 2020-08-24 08:33 | amanura | Thanks for checking into our edits. We have reverted the changeset and made the necessary changes. Thanks for the heads up. I will make sure to check the entire vicinity for the offset before making the edits. Always happy to learn from the communityRegardsAmanura | |
| 89145399 by amanura @ 2020-08-09 06:58 | 1 | 2020-08-11 12:09 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Did you really use all of these imagery sources, it looks rather odd as Bing streetside is very urbancentric and certainly not available here.Sources should only include what is actually used.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2020-08-12 05:52 | amanura | Thanks of checking our edits. I have enabled all the imagery to check its availability in the OSM and make necessary changes. All the enabled sources are auto populated while saving the edits. Apologies, I have not modified the sources before saving the edits. Thanks for the suggestions. Going forwa... | |
| 84550786 by amanura @ 2020-05-03 07:42 | 1 | 2020-05-03 20:53 | Wynndale ♦54 | You have followed Esri imagery, which is poorly aligned in southwest London. |
| 2 | 2020-05-04 15:39 | amanura | Thanks for your inputs. I have missed checking the latest imagery, post your inputs I have verified this location with our 2019 private imagery where the location is under construction. So please do suggest me what to do in this case as reverting the changes also might not correct the accurate data ... | |
| 83280779 by amanura @ 2020-04-09 04:33 | 1 | 2020-04-10 15:43 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Hi, what source did you actually use for this edit?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/789750526 seems rather unlikely as it creates a routable link. I am guessing there is a break at some point but no imagery shows that and really this needs a survey. Don't know when that will be. As a minim... |
| 2 | 2020-04-13 10:38 | amanura | Thanks for checking our edits. This edit is partially based on our driver feedback and available resources. I had cross verified my edits and made the necessary corrections. please find the changeset(83470001) for the suggested modifications. always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 82421374 by amanura @ 2020-03-20 08:06 | 1 | 2020-03-20 08:31 | ndm ♦889 | This looks more like a footway -- are you sure this is a service road? |
| 2 | 2020-03-20 10:49 | amanura | Thanks for your time for checking our edits. It was a mistake from our end. Reverting the changes as per the suggestion. Please find the changeset (82428040) for modifications. Always happy to learn from the community |