OSM changeset discussions of isakavya

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
163268875 by isakavya @ 2025-03-06 04:22	1	2025-05-22 11:03	Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,155	This seems highly unlikely. Removed.
	2	2025-05-23 09:58	isakavya	Thanks for reverting the edits. Apologies for the delay in the response I have looked into the change set and could identify that I have added incorrect turn restrictions due to ambiguity based on lane specific board which can be seen through satellite imagery . I will ensure that the future edits...
162116447 by isakavya @ 2025-02-04 09:15	1	2025-02-04 11:34	rskedgell ♦1,747	The traffic signals and crossings which you have deleted were added by mappers who are (a) local and (b) competent. Please revert this changeset. Why are you not listed in your bio or the list of Amazon contributors as such?
	2	2025-02-06 10:07	rskedgell ♦1,747	No response to changeset comment, reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162200736
	3	2025-02-06 12:34	vineelaa ♦8	Thanks for reverting the edits. Aplogies for the delay in the response and will ensure that these are addressed on priority. We have looked into the changeset and could identify that the mapper has missed on adding the traffic signals while creating the Carriage Way on this segment. To address t...
	4	2025-02-07 14:03	swappa ♦1	Hi thanks for pointing out the missing user in the list of Amazon contributors. We have added the user isakavya into the list. Also, we will do a sanity check and add if there are any other missing IDs . Thanks!!
	5	2025-02-07 15:06	rskedgell ♦1,747	Hi @swappa, many thanks for that.
162149170 by isakavya @ 2025-02-05 03:46	1	2025-02-05 08:53	rskedgell ♦1,747	These streets are not access=private, as this would imply a fully private gated community, which isn't the case here. That would only work if there were a staffed gatehouse, which is somewhat improbable for social housing built in the 1920s. Setting this blocks pedestrian access, which is in...
	2	2025-02-06 15:46	vineelaa ♦8	Apologize for the delayed response and assure you that these are addressed on high priority. Following our review of the changeset, we can confirm our edits accurately reflect the actual ground conditions. The gate is clearly visible in Bing Streetview, and as per OpenStreetMap documentation https:...
161855485 by isakavya @ 2025-01-28 12:15	1	2025-02-04 12:14	rskedgell ♦1,747	If you split a carriageway around a crossing island, the original crossing node tagged with crossing:island=yes needs to be replaced with two separate crossings tagged with crossing:island=no
	2	2025-02-04 12:21	rskedgell ♦1,747	You also need to pay attention to other tags affected by a split like this, e.g. sidewalk, parking, cycleway. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162123099
	3	2025-02-06 15:44	vineelaa ♦8	Thank you for reverting the changes. Apologies for the delayed response and assure you that these are addressed on high priority. Upon reviewing the changeset, we identified that while creating the Carriage Way, the mapper omitted several necessary corresponding tags that should have been added at ...
161884063 by isakavya @ 2025-01-29 06:40	1	2025-02-04 12:12	rskedgell ♦1,747	Please could you explain what the point of splitting a carriageway around a crossing island is, if you do not also map the crossings and traffic calming features. You have also dragged a cafe several kilometres away into the wrong position. Please revert.
	2	2025-02-06 10:01	rskedgell ♦1,747	No response to changeset comment, reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162200464
	3	2025-02-06 15:43	vineelaa ♦8	Thanks for reverting the edits. Apologies for the delay in the response and will ensure that these are addressed on priority. We have looked into the changeset and could identify that the mapper has missed on adding the traffic signals and crossing tags while creating the Carriage Way on this segme...
162111407 by isakavya @ 2025-02-04 06:07	1	2025-02-04 11:57	rskedgell ♦1,747	What is your source for the introduction of one way working at the SE end of Queen's Road?
	2	2025-02-06 15:27	vineelaa ♦8	Thanks for reverting the edits. Apologies for the delay in the response and will ensure that these are addressed on priority. We have looked into the changeset and could identify that the mapper has incorrectly added direction due to ambiguity based on the lane marking which can be seen on satellit...
	3	2025-02-06 15:39	rskedgell ♦1,747	Thanks!
162110081 by isakavya @ 2025-02-04 04:58	1	2025-02-04 12:04	rskedgell ♦1,747	What is your source for the introduction of one way working on Chapter Road between its junctions with Deacon Road. There does not appear to be a relevant traffic order in The Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?text=%22Chapter+Road%22&categorycode=G208040000&noticety...
	2	2025-02-06 15:39	vineelaa ♦8	Thanks for reverting the edits. Apologies for the delay in the response and will ensure that these are addressed on priority. We have looked into the changeset and could identify that the mapper has incorrectly added direction due to ambiguity based on the lane marking which can be seen on satellit...
162116329 by isakavya @ 2025-02-04 09:12	1	2025-02-04 11:26	rskedgell ♦1,747	This isn't a dual carriageway, as the lane separation is mostly a painted area, not a physical barrier. By all means split the carriageway around the crossing islands, but if you're going to do that you need to make sure that traffic signals, crossings and bus stops are mapped correctly...
	2	2025-02-06 10:08	rskedgell ♦1,747	No response to changeset comment, reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162200736
	3	2025-02-06 11:43	vineelaa ♦8	Thanks for reverting the edits. Aplogies for the delay in the response and will ensure that these are addressed on priority. We have looked into the changeset and could identify that the mapper has missed on modifying the traffic signal while creating the Carriage Way on this segment. The mapper wa...
	4	2025-02-06 11:50	rskedgell ♦1,747	Hi @vineela and thanks for the response. Please could you also ask the mapper to reply to my comments on changesets creating or reversing one way streets. These are not necessarily incorrect, as I realise that your mappers have access to driver feedback in addition to the sources available to me. In...
	5	2025-02-06 12:26	vineelaa ♦8	Thank you for the quick response. To ensure that there is no further delay in acknowledging the feedback shared by you, I have responded on behalf of the mapper as she is on timeoff for the day. As correctly said by you, while we have access to the driver feedbacks, we proritize editing in accordanc...
162112804 by isakavya @ 2025-02-04 07:14	1	2025-02-04 11:51	rskedgell ♦1,747	I cannot find a traffic order reversing the direction of the one way working in Ryder Street. What is your source for this?
	2	2025-02-06 11:50	vineelaa ♦8	Aplogies for the delay in the response and will ensure that these are addressed on priority. We have looked into the changeset and the edit done was true to ground reality https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.507183%7E-0.137638&lvl=17.0&v=2&sV=1&pi=-14.3&style=x&dir=276.6, and th...
	3	2025-02-06 11:52	rskedgell ♦1,747	That's great, thanks for providing confirmation so quickly.
152948987 by isakavya @ 2024-06-20 14:31	1	2024-06-20 15:59	MyoKyawKyaw ♦124	Thanks for your contribution. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948987
149420271 by isakavya @ 2024-04-01 07:42	1	2024-06-03 22:55	jmapb ♦420	Hi isakavya -- the tag "access:conditional=no @(Mo-Fr 07:00-13:00) 07:00-13:00)" on the segment https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268090833 that you created is badly formatted (mismatched parens). Your changset comment "added restriction for board is only for buses" doesn...
	2	2024-06-14 09:01	pachpora ♦17	Hi, Thank you for going through the edit and bringing this mistake to our attention. We apologize for the error in the tag addition and formatting. It appears there was a misunderstanding regarding the addition of the bus lane restriction. We have shared feedback with our editor to ensure accurac...