| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 96713489 by dhaird @ 2020-12-31 07:48 | 1 | 2022-06-08 15:24 | vectro ♦8 | Do you mind commenting on why these ways are marked as private? I didn't see any access restrictions when I was there. |
| 2 | 2022-06-09 12:02 | abvincen ♦34 | Hi,Thank you for reviewing my changeset.I have added the private access tag to the road based on the "Private property" street sign board present in the Bing streetside overlay ( https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=33.579337~-117.729387&lvl=17&dir=182.592&style=x&v=2&sV=1 ... | |
| 3 | 2022-06-10 02:42 | vectro ♦8 | Hmm, interesting. I came in from the other side and didn't see this sign.Despite the text on this sign this a commercial complex with retail so I think in practice it is definitely open to the public. Do you think access=permissive would be more appropriate? | |
| 4 | 2022-06-10 11:11 | abvincen ♦34 | Hi,Based on the ground-reality information that you have provided and since these roads are accessible by everyone, the "access=yes" tag that you have added, seems to be appropriate in this scenario.Regards,abvincen. | |
| 111225729 by dhaird @ 2021-09-15 06:19 | 1 | 2021-09-15 06:23 | dhaird | Adding the source as "Driver feedback" for further clarification. |
| 108827791 by dhaird @ 2021-07-29 13:03 | 1 | 2021-07-29 13:39 | dhaird | Hi,Based on the information available on the website https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/CurrentConstruction/Pavement/Pages/cliff-road.aspx and using Private Maxar Imagery, I have removed the access=no from the bridge.Please reach out for any further queries.Thanks,dhaird |
| 97695564 by dhaird @ 2021-01-18 11:37 | 1 | 2021-01-18 11:46 | dhaird | #MapWithAI & #https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Facebook_AI-Assisted_Road_Tracing --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97695564 |
| 76402367 by dhaird @ 2019-10-30 15:17 | 1 | 2019-10-30 16:29 | user_5359 ♦19,605 | 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 https://www.osm.org/relation/9894463 and https://www.osm.org/relation/9894464. |
| 2 | 2019-10-31 08:58 | dhaird | Hi,Thanks for your suggestion.I have fixed this changeset 76436497Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Regards,dhaird. | |
| 74476218 by dhaird @ 2019-09-14 15:04 | 1 | 2019-09-15 19:28 | user_5359 ♦19,605 | A restriction relation must have three members (from, to, via), see relation https://www.osm.org/relation/10038508 |
| 2 | 2019-09-16 11:07 | dhaird | Hi,Apologies for the miss in relations. I've corrected the edit under changeset#74524902Regards,dhaird | |
| 74476233 by dhaird @ 2019-09-14 15:05 | 1 | 2019-09-15 19:28 | user_5359 ♦19,605 | A restriction relation must have three members (from, to, via), see relation https://www.osm.org/relation/10038509 |
| 2 | 2019-09-16 11:07 | dhaird | Hi,Apologies for the miss in relations. I've corrected the edit under changeset#74524902Regards,dhaird | |
| 68926660 by dhaird @ 2019-04-05 15:48 | 1 | 2019-07-31 08:06 | Minh Nguyen ♦569 | This changeset has been reverted in changeset 72842955. Please do not replace a circular way with a single node tagged highway=turning_loop. The highway=turning_loop tag exists for mappers who don’t have the time to draw a loop, but if someone has taken the time to draw a loop, that detail sho... |
| 2 | 2019-07-31 08:58 | dhaird | Hi Minh Nguyen,Thanks for the update. Understood the logic behind the use of turning loops. Yes for a larger circular segment, it makes better sense to add circular road segments than a turning loop. I will forward this information to my team. Looking forward to learning more from you.Regards,... | |
| 68699921 by dhaird @ 2019-03-30 14:50 | 1 | 2019-07-23 23:44 | Minh Nguyen ♦569 | Thanks for these changes. By the way, when you’re mapping in Ohio, please consider using the OSIP 6in layer wherever it’s available. It’s more up-to-date than Mapbox imagery and at least as clear and well-aligned. |
| 2 | 2019-07-25 12:19 | dhaird | Hi Minh Nguyen,Thanks a lot for your suggestions. Will follow this going forward and ensure the message is passed on to my team as well.Looking forward to learning more from you.Regards,Dhaird | |
| 69177677 by dhaird @ 2019-04-13 13:55 | 1 | 2019-04-13 16:11 | Glassman ♦5,275 | I modified the footway to connect to the sidewalk as a crossing. |
| 2 | 2019-07-09 06:41 | dhaird | Hi,Thanks for extending map features further and apologies for the delayed response. I have added the roads as per the aerial image which is clear in mapbox. Thanks for adding the footpaths. We are always happy to engage with the OSM community.Regards,dhaird | |
| 70833225 by dhaird @ 2019-06-01 11:23 | 1 | 2019-06-02 03:46 | oba510 ♦256 | Acton Crescent is an ordinary public street; I have removed the access=destination tag you added. |
| 2 | 2019-06-04 14:05 | yaswap ♦68 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. The editor might have got confused with "Not a through street" sign board. There is no need to add destination tag here. Thanks for correcting it. We will take care of these kind of edits going forward.We are always happy to engage with the OMS ... | |
| 68095756 by dhaird @ 2019-03-13 11:19 | 1 | 2019-03-13 22:49 | chachafish ♦462 | Hello. Do you live in this area? Have you seen this service road? I see you created a road that goes through a fence (without interacting with it) and the gate you also created does not seem to be attached to the fence around the property. The last time I was at this location I didn't recall it... |
| 2 | 2019-03-14 11:34 | jguthula ♦65 | Hi chachafish,Thanks for looking into this edit. We don't live here, but as per street level imagery of Bing and all other satellite imagery sources it was clear that there is a gate so our editor considered to be missing data and added this information. I believe your local knowledge is mo... | |
| 3 | 2019-03-15 23:17 | chachafish ♦462 | Okay, I was just making sure. Thank you |