| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73842612 by bathis @ 2019-08-28 13:35 | 1 | 2019-09-01 14:50 | user_5359 ♦19,605 | Hello! I change you access=permit to permissive see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/719369120 |
| 2 | 2019-09-06 12:42 | bathis | Hi George,Thanks for looking into the changeset, apologies for the typo. Looking forward to learn more from the community.Regards,bathis | |
| 72438849 by bathis @ 2019-07-19 16:28 | 1 | 2019-07-19 18:23 | rivermont ♦221 | Hi bathis,Thanks for the addition. I've changed this from a residential road to a driveway. TIGER can be wrong sometimes and often extends roads past where they end down someone's private driveway.See changeset 72442522.Will |
| 2 | 2019-07-24 14:24 | bathis | Hi Will,Thanks for looking into the changeset, I see that this has been corrected. Will follow the suggestion going forward.Looking forward to learn more from you. | |
| 62090951 by bathis @ 2018-08-29 04:37 | 1 | 2018-08-30 21:59 | ndm ♦889 | I've removed the private tag from the graveyard.Have the gates been surveyed or are they "assumed"?Sent to osm-edit-escalations@amazon.com but no response. |
| 2 | 2019-07-08 15:08 | bathis | Hi ndm,Thanks for making the changes and I apologize for the delayed response. There was a little confusion with parallel roads and added gate on the wrong road segment mistakenly. It’s a complete mistake from my side. Thanks for reverting the changes.Regards,Bathis | |
| 3 | 2019-07-08 21:02 | ndm ♦889 | No worries -- thanks for reviewing | |
| 67417606 by bathis @ 2019-02-21 05:57 | 1 | 2019-02-22 13:24 | Horza ♦110 | Has this been scouted out or is it based entirely on aerial imagery? It looks to be like this driveway stops near where it hits the trees and the southern half actually comes from the road coming down from the junction with Gwynford Lane |
| 2 | 2019-07-08 15:07 | bathis | Hi Horza,Thanks for reviewing the edit and we apologize for the delayed response. Here the edit was made entirely based on the aerial image. It’s a clear mistake from my side. It is correct to add roads till what we see from the aerial image than assuming. Going forward there won’t be... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-08 19:28 | freebeer ♦1,598 | serwoas bathis,i am guessing you are part of mapping group given the flood of commentary of late, although it is neither obvious, nor relevant.in any case, not seeing the unmodified entry of this changeset, i'd like to propose that you expand your aerial imageries to include the archiv... | |
| 4 | 2019-07-08 20:03 | Horza ♦110 | freebeer, haha, yes, it can be hard to work out where things are sometimes. You get used to it thoughI tend to use a mixture of Esri and Mapbox, Mapbox tends to be oversaturated a lot of the time, but having two different image sets to look at can help with visually parsing what I'm looking... | |
| 63294049 by bathis @ 2018-10-08 02:53 | 1 | 2018-10-08 03:02 | jgon6 ♦121 | I'm confused by why you deleted this way. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/63294049 |
| 2 | 2018-10-08 06:47 | pattamaa ♦15 | Hi,The editor deleted the segment as it had a lane marking showing One-way and was not connected on one side. But it can be observed that it is a "Drive-thru".Added the segment and connected it to Node:5933312216 thereby fixing the one way error.Please let us know if you have any r... |