| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 137649772 by arkdatta @ 2023-06-22 14:12 | 1 | 2023-06-22 14:35 | Clifford Street Advisors LLP ♦1 | yes! |
| 78975414 by arkdatta @ 2019-12-29 10:54 | 1 | 2020-05-04 21:37 | Anu_Zade ♦8 | Hello arkdatta,My name is Anu and I work as a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. While mapping in this area, I found 4 ways tagged incorrectly on 3rd Avenue way/391198727, way/634155259, way/634155255 and way/634155254, each of these has been modeled as oneway=yes. These 4 ways should be labeled a... |
| 2 | 2020-05-05 09:00 | naaitha ♦18 | Hi Anu,Thanks for responding. I'll be correcting this on behalf of arkdatta, as he has lost access to his laptop due to COVID issues at his place. Sorry to see that the edit was incorrectly made. I agree with your statement and have made the suggested corrections under changeset#84678211 and ... | |
| 76329265 by arkdatta @ 2019-10-29 08:01 | 1 | 2019-10-29 20:19 | user_5359 ♦19,602 | Hello! A restriction relation must have three roles (from (one way) to (one way), via (usually one node, but can also be different ways). Please see relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7689077. |
| 2 | 2019-10-30 09:33 | arkdatta | Hi,Apologies for the mistake. Thanks for your suggestion.I have fixed this changeset #newchangeset.Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Regards,arkdatta. | |
| 3 | 2019-10-30 09:39 | arkdatta | Changeset: #76383292 | |
| 66128478 by arkdatta @ 2019-01-08 13:25 | 1 | 2019-01-11 19:42 | Jordi MF ♦1,643 | Hello,Thanks for your interest improving Valencia map in OSM. Please, be carefully with some changes like this changeset. This way was created 1 year ago, so it's quite recently. Probably, the aerial imagery that you have used is older. If you are doing any changes, please, look at the prev... |
| 2 | 2019-07-10 07:12 | arkdatta | Hi Jordi MF, Thanks for looking into the edit and apologies for the delayed response. Its a complete mistake from my side. Going forward I will check the latest resources and last edit dates before editing. Thanks for the updates. | |
| 62180532 by arkdatta @ 2018-08-31 18:07 | 1 | 2018-08-31 19:49 | Rich1234 ♦85 | Just a quick note to point out that these two new service roads are only connected to route from one half of the pair of ways that make up Franconia Road.The Esri images clearly show a center turn lane, so both pairs of Franconia look to be eligible to turn into the new service roads, but as the... |
| 2 | 2019-07-08 15:07 | arkdatta | Hi,Thanks for the update and I apologize for the delayed response. I made the changes as soon as the comment was made but missed to reply back. Thanks for the suggestions.Regards,arkadatta. | |
| 62922467 by arkdatta @ 2018-09-25 17:59 | 1 | 2018-09-26 05:20 | tux67 ♦1,945 | Hi, local knowledge is an advantage here - please read the german description and .. this is oneway except for public transport .. changes to these type of infrastructure restrictions can have serious impact. I will revert the change.BRtux67 --- Published ... |
| 2 | 2018-09-26 05:23 | tux67 ♦1,945 | reverted with CS 62934246 --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/62922467 | |
| 3 | 2019-07-08 15:06 | arkdatta | Hi,Thanks for reviewing the changeset and I apologize for the delayed response. Thanks for the suggestion. Going forward I will check the description and proceed with the edits.Thanks for reverting the changes.Regards,arkadatta. | |
| 71862168 by arkdatta @ 2019-07-03 14:12 | 1 | 2019-07-03 15:59 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,139 | Unclassified is probably a better fit than residential in this case. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71862168 |
| 2 | 2019-07-04 16:19 | arkdatta | Hi Paul,Thanks for looking into my edits and suggesting me a correction. I have changed the road classification to unclassified. Please do let me know if you have any further suggestions. Regards,Arkadip | |
| 66158107 by arkdatta @ 2019-01-09 11:15 | 1 | 2019-01-11 01:42 | Jordi MF ♦1,643 | Hello,Thanks for your interest improving OSM. But I don't understand why you made this way bidirectional. Both avenues are bidirectional.Thank you,Jordi |
| 2 | 2019-01-11 11:59 | jguthula ♦65 | Hi Jordi,Thanks for looking into this edit. From satellite imagery we clearly identified the first segment direction to be wrong so removed the oneway direction. We were not clear with the other segment direction so didn't touch it. If you have local knowledge please do fix the direction of... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-11 18:49 | Jordi MF ♦1,643 | Hi jguthula,Thank you for your explanation. I fixed one direction. The cars that are seen in a row is a parking lane. So, one avenue is unidirectional in reality.Regards,Jordi | |
| 62923171 by arkdatta @ 2018-09-25 18:21 | 1 | 2018-09-25 23:29 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Are you absolutely certain about this?Whilst two sections of cycleway is a little unlikely you seem to have removed both and left a big gap rendering this route unusable on foot or by cyclists. Please remember that OSM is a community project and it is important that mappers are aware and conside... |
| 2 | 2018-09-27 10:19 | pattamaa ♦15 | Hi Phil,as per your recommendation we have corrected the edit by adding footpath between the residential roads. Referred to changeset 118485 . Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them. | |
| 62921909 by arkdatta @ 2018-09-25 17:43 | 1 | 2018-09-25 23:10 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Hi, I think this edit has gone very wrong. Please can you explain why you have changed a residential area to an administrative boundary?Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2018-09-26 12:45 | charabor ♦6 | Hi Phil,Previously there was a undefined line enclosing the houses without proper tags,(* line tool was used instead of area tool),but the auditor incorrectly changed to admin boundary instead of creating house outline using area option. However I have corrected it as per the context of surround... | |
| 62381213 by arkdatta @ 2018-09-07 16:30 | 1 | 2018-09-08 03:00 | Rich1234 ♦85 | Hi. Thanks for contributing to OSM.Your changes do not actually reflect the reality of that intersection, and your new alignment leaves an odd kink in the way that comprises East Leesburg Pike in that area.If you look at the satelite images the origional intersection layout was actually mor... |
| 2 | 2018-09-10 11:22 | yaswap ♦68 | Thanks for the update.. We changed the Sleepy Hollow road to dual carriage way-one leading to Leeseburg Pike(right only) and the other segment incoming from Arlington Boulevard and Leeseburg Pike(at the traffic signal) as per your recommendation. Thank you for spending your valuable time to help... | |
| 3 | 2018-09-10 11:47 | yaswap ♦68 | There are lane marks and traffic signs on the Leeseburg Pike road which show that only left and straight are allowed. We are not certain about turn from Leeseburg Pike and Sleepy Hollow road. | |
| 4 | 2018-09-11 01:31 | Rich1234 ♦85 | If you look at the Bing streetside images from East bound Leesburg (way # 8810224) you will see that the way that is Arlington Blvd (way # 46350043) crosses Leesburg before the intersection with Sleepy Hollow. (You may need to pick a Bing image a few steps back from the intersection for the full vi... | |
| 5 | 2018-09-11 11:39 | yaswap ♦68 | Thanks for the update on the turn restriction. As per your recommendation we have changed the junction connecting Leesburg pike and Arlington boulevard and connected Sleepy Hollow road to Leesburg Pike. Thank you for your suggestions. | |
| 62446857 by arkdatta @ 2018-09-10 09:31 | 1 | 2018-09-10 09:40 | arkdatta | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1513449147 |