| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 151969350 by karitotp @ 2024-05-29 03:30 | 1 | 2024-05-29 03:36 | Henny Vianelde ♦76 | Great Job, Keep Mapping --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151969350 |
| 141519083 by karitotp @ 2023-09-20 15:20 | 1 | 2023-09-20 15:27 | Frans S ♦9,776 | Hello. I noticed that you validated this task. 962. Don't you pay attention to correct tagging of highways ?Often through going highways are tagged as track, which is not correct. They ought to be changed into the correct tag. like residential, unclassified.Best regards |
| 2 | 2023-09-20 23:47 | karitotp | Hello, Thank you for your comment, I just changed the tag of those highways to residential.Regards. | |
| 141171716 by karitotp @ 2023-09-12 16:20 | 1 | 2023-09-12 16:35 | Frans S ♦9,776 | Hello. Thanks for validating on this project. However, You left so many issues open that I had the idea to deal with a beginner mapper. After checking your history, You are very experenced !Please check this task again and solve the issues.I put it back to ready to validate.No hard feelings .\... |
| 40027674 by karitotp @ 2016-06-14 22:03 | 1 | 2021-07-09 15:25 | DUGA ♦548 | The bridge is not that long.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45671710/history#map=19/39.37960/-76.50244 |
| 59582981 by karitotp @ 2018-06-05 21:41 | 1 | 2021-06-04 04:02 | Anisa IRM-ED ♦83 | Hi, @karitotp,I've adjusted this road(https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/594353716) based on Maxar Premium Imagery because this road has crossed with The water body id 322755001.Thank You, :) |
| 86261960 by karitotp @ 2020-06-05 20:50 | 1 | 2020-06-06 09:56 | Frans S ♦9,776 | Hello. Thanks for mapping herePlease don't let nodes of buildings connect to each other,Use the Ctr key during mapping to avoid that.Best regards and keep mapping |
| 39785349 by karitotp @ 2016-06-03 18:39 | 1 | 2019-12-20 20:51 | skquinn ♦803 | Please note that the turn:lanes (and turn:lanes:*) tags by themselves do not convey lane count information and need to be supplemented by lanes (and lanes:*). You may want to look at the turnlanes-tagging plugin to help automate the task of adding turn lanes; it has presets for some of the most comm... |
| 74596338 by karitotp @ 2019-09-17 19:18 | 1 | 2019-09-21 09:43 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi,please make sure that you don't add a space character after keys or values - this makes the tag invalid for most data users.I just corrected about 20 in your data, but there might be more. Could you have a look?Jan |
| 2 | 2019-09-21 20:45 | karitotp | Hi Jan,Thank you for notifying me about this and fix those incorrect values. I reviewed all my changeset and looks good now. Regards. | |
| 69241592 by karitotp @ 2019-04-15 16:21 | 1 | 2019-05-21 03:06 | DP24PH ♦418 | Unfortunately, according to MMDA, the supposed parking lots are actually a sidewalk for PH-120/R-1/Roxas Boulevard, and there are several vehicles got cited for obstructing the sidewalk. Hopefully, this will help you a lot. |
| 48404954 by karitotp @ 2017-05-04 20:05 | 1 | 2019-04-08 11:37 | INFO MeuPorto ♦1 | Esta rua e Alameda dos Oitis |
| 60476384 by karitotp @ 2018-07-06 19:56 | 1 | 2019-03-26 16:00 | Frans S ♦9,776 | Hi. Interesting Youtube video how to map tall buildings in dense areashttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fsBest regards |
| 43139918 by karitotp @ 2016-10-24 20:47 | 1 | 2019-03-01 01:11 | punya_man ♦18 | Hi karitotp,Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way 672256820 classified as 'Unclassified'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'residential'.Please look into these and share your... |
| 32810484 by karitotp @ 2015-07-22 19:25 | 1 | 2018-11-11 20:25 | b-jazz ♦644 | There is already a defined track road for part of these snowmobile gps-tracks(?). You shouldn't be adding a way where one already exists, should you? |
| 58557494 by karitotp @ 2018-04-30 14:43 | 1 | 2018-04-30 14:59 | karitotp | Wrong comment for this change. The correct one should be "Importando Instituciones Educativas en Perú" |
| 53644856 by karitotp @ 2017-11-09 17:17 | 1 | 2017-12-07 07:58 | carciofo ♦186 | Hi, might I ask why your team seem to be replacing destination:street tags to destination? I wasn't able find any public guidelines from Mapbox that this is established practice. From my point of view you're taking more specific data which is already disambiguated and making it less specif... |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 06:47 | carciofo ♦186 | Would appreciate a response, since it seems you're applying this policy as a matter of course. At least there should be some reason you can provide or a link to those policies. Thanks again. | |
| 56834987 by karitotp @ 2018-03-02 23:04 | 1 | 2018-03-04 17:13 | PierZen ♦262 | To display HV Power lines on infrastructure maps such as OpenInfraMap, voltage should be added. |
| 53644738 by karitotp @ 2017-11-09 17:12 | 1 | 2017-12-07 07:50 | carciofo ♦186 | Hi, might I ask why your team seem to be replacing destination:street tags to destination? I wasn't able find any public guidelines from Mapbox that this is established practice. From my point of view you're taking more specific data which is already disambiguated and making it less specif... |
| 54002568 by karitotp @ 2017-11-22 14:15 | 1 | 2017-11-29 11:25 | Essin ♦93 | Is the primary name really Saint George's Hospital? I've only ever seen it described as "Sankt Görans sjukhus", which _means_ "Saint George's Hospital", but that doesn't imply that the most-used name in English is a direct translation, nor that the Englis... |
| 2 | 2017-11-29 14:35 | karitotp | Hi Essin, I made the change according the wikidata page: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7401336. If the primary name is not "Saint George's Hospital" it can be add just as name:en and maintain "name=Sankt Görans sjukhus" which also is name:sv according wikidata. | |
| 53190045 by karitotp @ 2017-10-23 20:06 | 1 | 2017-11-23 14:24 | carciofo ♦186 | Hi, this changeset among many others from your colleagues at Mapbox from Oct 23/24 adds duplicated/overlapping roads. Here NW 18th Ct. Kindly coordinate and fix (cross ref changeset 53189994) |
| 2 | 2017-11-23 14:41 | karitotp | Hi, thank you for notifying us about this issue, I've just fixed it in this changesets https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54027811.Regards! | |
| 52986356 by karitotp @ 2017-10-16 16:12 | 1 | 2017-10-16 19:53 | Hjart ♦4,116 | Please note that this was not a mistake: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhookah_lounge |
| 2 | 2017-10-16 20:01 | Hjart ♦4,116 | I have reverted your "fix" | |
| 49870747 by karitotp @ 2017-06-27 18:55 | 1 | 2017-06-27 20:05 | Dalkvist ♦244 | Please don’t fix inconsequential stuff made by new users, try talking to them first and point out what they can do better. It is hardly a big thing that a minor road crosses a minor rail line. I reach out to the user earlier today https://osm.org/changeset/49643516 Don’t you guys ... |
| 2 | 2017-06-27 20:07 | Dalkvist ♦244 | wrong newbie comment :) this user: https://osm.org/changeset/49855500 | |
| 49145824 by karitotp @ 2017-05-31 20:05 | 1 | 2017-05-31 20:36 | karitotp | Correct changeset comment : Mapping turn-restriction in NYCCorrect source : Bing/Mapbox, Street level imagery |
| 49146238 by karitotp @ 2017-05-31 20:23 | 1 | 2017-05-31 20:36 | karitotp | correct changeset comment : Mapping turn-restriction in NYCcorrect source : Bing/Mapbox, Street level imagery |
| 48925808 by karitotp @ 2017-05-23 19:08 | 1 | 2017-05-26 17:12 | neuhausr ♦331 | Hi karitotp, this is a case where it might've been nice for you to leave a changeset comment or contact the user who created these features--it is a new user who seems to work in this area, but who maybe could've done a better job tagging etc. Cheers |
| 48768885 by karitotp @ 2017-05-17 17:33 | 1 | 2017-05-17 17:35 | karitotp | correct comment: adding deleted object again |
| 48543762 by karitotp @ 2017-05-09 21:07 | 1 | 2017-05-09 23:23 | Oleks ♦2 | huhuhuhhuu puppy pu shono tenero :3 |
| 29736262 by karitotp @ 2015-03-25 19:35 | 1 | 2017-04-26 03:41 | CloCkWeRX ♦343 | This unfortunately seems very offset from GPS traces (see improve-osm.org) and imagery (which aligns to the improve-osm.org gps traces. Is it worth moving everything in one go? |
| 2 | 2017-04-27 23:38 | karitotp | Hi CloCkWeRX,That seems to be one of my first editions in OSM, i am wondering if the imagery have been updated for that area or if I used a different source, because I do not understand which was the reason for the offset from the imagery.Anyway, thank you for notifying me about this. I see that... | |
| 47877303 by karitotp @ 2017-04-17 16:25 | 1 | 2017-04-19 10:46 | tux67 ♦1,936 | Hi karitotp,any specific reason to label this as natural=scrub? these are artificial grass areas inside a city park. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3DgrassBRStephan |
| 2 | 2017-04-19 18:00 | karitotp | Hi Stephan,According to the satellite imagery and according to the relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6266866) that looks more like a natural=scrub and not as a park as it was labeled before, besides it is inside another park.Regards. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-19 18:47 | tux67 ♦1,936 | Regarding the Park inside a Park you're correct and this change recent change seemed to be entered by a new (Pokemon?) mapper and is wrong. Nevertheless the previous and now again used natural=scrub is wrong here as well. Please tell me how you would tag a man made, short cut lawn insi... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-19 20:57 | Athemis ♦13 | Hi all,to give some insights from someone who literally just lives some minutes away from that place: The "Volksgarten" is a man-made park, though designed to be close to nature. Imho is perfectly fine to just tag it as leisure=park. As far as I can tell, the natural=scrub relation, orig... | |
| 5 | 2017-04-19 22:24 | karitotp | Thanks for your comments. You are right, local knowledge is better, please feel free to change the tag with whatever is more convenient.Regards, Karito | |
| 6 | 2017-04-20 14:08 | tux67 ♦1,936 | ok, thanks .. Athemis will pick up the topic with the local user community.BRStephan | |
| 47911559 by karitotp @ 2017-04-18 16:38 | 1 | 2017-04-19 04:56 | imperialmog ♦35 | I went in and added a few more things for you and to set it based on what standards are for OSM. Went and mapped the subdivision boundaries since i'm familiar with it based on my knowledge of the area. |
| 47639725 by karitotp @ 2017-04-10 21:42 | 1 | 2017-04-11 16:53 | chillly ♦819 | Hi,You have deleted a 'network capture area'. Do you know what a network capture area is? There are others, why did you delete this one? I want to know if the other are useful or not. |
| 2 | 2017-04-13 22:31 | karitotp | Hi Chillly,I dont know exactly what is this one, also I deleted it because the area does not match with the satellite imagery.I saw that other edits have also been flagged by community - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47639516 | |
| 46341851 by karitotp @ 2017-02-23 15:39 | 1 | 2017-02-23 15:42 | karitotp | Mistake in the comment, the correct comment is: Added missing streets. Other source are; Mapbox Satellite and Mapbox Telemetry |
| 45253752 by karitotp @ 2017-01-17 20:34 | 1 | 2017-01-19 10:02 | oba510 ♦256 | Hi, the way you added here is actually a narrow mid-block alley, not a typical residential road. Such roads should generally be tagged as highway=service, service=alley. Thanks! |
| 2 | 2017-01-20 22:53 | karitotp | Hi again, oba510!Thank you for bringing this to my notice and pointing out the apt way of labelling of this road. I have fixed the tag in this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45298416). Thanks again.Best, | |
| 45280231 by karitotp @ 2017-01-18 20:03 | 1 | 2017-01-19 09:06 | oba510 ♦256 | Hi, why did you extend San Jose Avenue through a building and construction site? |
| 2 | 2017-01-20 22:51 | karitotp | Thank you for the feedback. As the selective filters were on, I didn't spot this building under construction. Reverting this changeset to remove the road added through the building. Thanks again | |
| 43142385 by karitotp @ 2016-10-24 21:31 | 1 | 2016-11-19 19:46 | Minh Nguyen ♦561 | This changeset turned a residential landuse area into a residential street area that covered an entire city. I reverted this change in changeset 43808341. |
| 38226700 by karitotp @ 2016-04-01 14:02 | 1 | 2016-09-11 20:04 | Paul_012 ♦112 | Reverted by changeset 42049445 because the edit introduced layer conflicts. |
| 2 | 2016-09-15 20:51 | karitotp | Hey there!Thank you for having fixed the conflict since you contribute to improving the map. | |
| 38209776 by karitotp @ 2016-03-31 19:54 | 1 | 2016-08-10 18:33 | naoliv ♦1,783 | The proper fix here was to remove the "tunnel" key, instead adding a "layer = -1" |
| 2 | 2016-08-13 01:27 | karitotp | Hey there!Thanks for your feedback. The correction is in this [changeset](https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41373960). | |
| 39105061 by karitotp @ 2016-05-04 19:48 | 1 | 2016-08-06 12:01 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hello again,I'm afraid you've missed the "big picture" here again. The immediate edit prior to yours to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/110068049/history was a newbie one that caused a fair few other problems (including removing lots of names from the South Carolina relatio... |
| 2 | 2016-08-08 19:21 | karitotp | Hey again Andy!You are completely right. We should take care about the quality of the data. However, both roads I've edited - Mullinax Circle and the private one - don't have deleted tags by the newbie mapper, but added tags. So I just moved the point that was causing the impossible angl... | |
| 38478559 by karitotp @ 2016-04-11 15:42 | 1 | 2016-07-28 07:58 | AnkEric ♦147 | Feedback on Changesets 38478559 (karitotp), 39229604 (padvinder):If adjacent highway have [bicycle=no], [foot=no], [agricultural=no] set, these tags should also be applied to the new highway segments.Missing [ref=N244] on new highway segments.5 bus-routes were using the previous roundabout. Al... |
| 2 | 2016-08-01 19:21 | karitotp | Hey there!I agree with you. We should definitely maintain the original tags and relations involved with the road, and that's what I did. If you can see the original tags before my edit was [highway=primary] and [oneway=-1], so I just split the road and added the necessary tags for a bridge to... | |
| 40933373 by karitotp @ 2016-07-21 20:19 | 1 | 2016-07-22 09:37 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hi,Please try and restrict changeset size to at least less than one continent. Also, please do use meaningful changeset comments - "Fixing minor highways which overlap other major highways" and some random hashtag does not explain what geographical features you actually changed, why, a... |
| 2 | 2016-07-22 14:31 | karitotp | Hi Andy;I made a mistake uploading two changes in different areas, I will be more careful with these kind of changes.Thanks for your feedback. | |
| 3 | 2016-07-22 17:06 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Thanks. In changeset comments please also do try and explain what geographical features you actually changed, why, and based on what source. | |
| 39557383 by karitotp @ 2016-05-25 14:21 | 1 | 2016-06-10 13:56 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Thanks for fixing this. I've tried to explain the problem to the previous editor: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/969 . |
| 35265050 by karitotp @ 2015-11-12 16:14 | 1 | 2016-06-07 00:49 | Jeffrey Friedl ♦10 | This changeset broke reality... the road had been precisely laid out (by me) using data from the Japanese government, and now this update broke it and it's obviously wrong. This changeset should be reverted. |
| 2 | 2016-06-07 20:14 | karitotp | Hey Jeffrey;I realigned the road using GSI Japan Satellite (ort) , but I've already [reverted] (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39861887) my changeset. Thanks for your feedback. | |
| 3 | 2016-06-07 22:29 | Jeffrey Friedl ♦10 | Cool, thanks, it now looks better. I'd sent (less curt) message to you via OSM describing the situation... the road had been moved since the GSI images were taken, and anyway, I use GSI road-edge data to help position roads very precisely. If it's a road in Japan I've modified, its ... | |
| 38478696 by karitotp @ 2016-04-11 15:48 | 1 | 2016-04-12 07:46 | Владимир К ♦1,775 | hey! please, add relations just like there http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38478696#map=18/55.73418/52.42480if you add shared nodes on such junctions! |
| 2 | 2016-04-14 18:22 | karitotp | Hi! Thanks for adding those relations.I'm fixing connectivity issues. I don't know this place, so I can't add relations. Thanks for your feedback. | |
| 37770374 by karitotp @ 2016-03-11 19:46 | 1 | 2016-04-07 09:25 | Владимир К ♦1,775 | Hello! I see, you added nodes 4055312665 4055312664 and so on. They are right for validator, but they make routing wrong.For example http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=55.74396%2C52.39203%3B55.74417%2C52.39199http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osr... |
| 2 | 2016-04-07 23:07 | karitotp | Hello!I was fixing highway intersections that aren't connected, but I've already reverted my changeset on 38393541 .Thank you for your feedback. | |
| 3 | 2016-04-07 23:12 | karitotp | This is the link of my reverted changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38393541 | |
| 37906145 by karitotp @ 2016-03-17 20:32 | 1 | 2016-03-17 23:33 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Hi. When you join roads like this, be sure it is actually possible to turn at the joins you have created (junctions). In this case it is not possible (the roads were intentionally not connected). So you have allowed incorrect routing at this junction. Please do not do that again if you do not know t... |
| 2 | 2016-03-20 14:58 | karitotp | Hi aceman444,Thanks for your feedback and fixing the wrong junction. I was working on connectivity errors using [to-fix](http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix) and did not realize the missing junction was intentional. So I'll be more careful in these case. Thanks again. | |
| 3 | 2016-03-21 14:50 | Rub21 ♦30 | Hey aceman444- We are detecting all crossing highway issues in the world and we are fixing them, however why you left intentionally the crossing highways? that is not perfectly good for navigation, maybe it works but not completely fine. Also I saw the issue (junction) was fixed it by you, it looks ... | |
| 4 | 2016-03-22 20:48 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Yes, I know crossing roads should have a common node to have a complete navigation. The roads were not joined to have a proper navigation atleast for normal cars (not caring about ambulances or so). The other (perfect) alternative was to join the roads but add the ton of turn-restriction relations. ... | |
| 34234590 by karitotp @ 2015-09-24 20:54 | 1 | 2015-09-24 21:32 | Rub21 ♦30 | Test, podría responder este mensaje ni bien lo reciba.Gracias. |
| 2 | 2015-09-24 21:45 | karitotp | Recibido :) | |
| 33915929 by karitotp @ 2015-09-09 18:10 | 1 | 2015-09-09 19:20 | TrulsBekk ♦2 | Try to avoid change sets that span entire continents. |
| 2 | 2015-09-10 13:55 | karitotp | Thank you for your observation TrulsBekk , I'll be careful in my changeset. | |
| 33549289 by karitotp @ 2015-08-24 15:08 | 1 | 2015-08-24 17:44 | MikeN ♦352 | Hi, Thank you for the edit. This "Frontage Road" was removed many years ago, and most of it has grass or bushes growing on it. Since there are still traces, I changed it to type Track. |
| 2 | 2015-08-25 14:18 | karitotp | "Hey there. Thanks for your feedback. As you told it's possible to see a road, but definitely it's not a highway=track, so I've changed it to a highway=unclassified. | |
| 3 | 2015-08-26 01:46 | MikeN ♦352 | That area does not meet the definition of 'unclassified' in the Wiki, nor its common usage in North America (Roughly equivalent to 'residential' but without residences). Specifically it is no longer a public road, it is all on private land. I researched the public record bef... | |
| 4 | 2015-08-26 14:08 | karitotp | thanks for the link , you are right according to the images that you sent me and the street classification corresponds more to be a highway = track .I am going to change the tag to a highway=track. | |
| 33275926 by karitotp @ 2015-08-11 19:18 | 1 | 2015-08-12 08:35 | Peter Mead ♦11 | Thank you for improving this road. However, it would have been better to change the existing way rather than delete it and add a new one. We've now essentially lost the history of it.Also, your changeset says "aligning roads" but you haven't changed the alignment. |
| 2 | 2015-08-12 21:11 | karitotp | Peter Mead, I've been working on impossible angle roads, I did not remove the road, I have splitted this road , it should generate other new road.I reverted my change (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33300928) and left a note(https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/413223) to someone ... | |
| 3 | 2015-08-13 08:10 | EdLoach ♦171 | With the reversion and the comments on the note it is clearer what was done. I've edited it, perhaps replicating what was done before. | |
| 4 | 2015-08-13 08:40 | Peter Mead ♦11 | karitotp, I didn't say you removed the road I said you removed the way. A revert wasn't really necessary as I was just letting you know about something that you may not have realised and that you might wish to do slightly differently in the future. | |
| 32629932 by karitotp @ 2015-07-14 15:05 | 1 | 2015-07-14 17:22 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Hi, I do not see you changing any oneways in this changeset so what does the changeset comment relate to? And yes, that oneway on the start of the bridge is a dead-end, a blocked branch on the bridge so it does not help much fixing it in any direction. Looks like somebody misplaced the barrier=block... |
| 2 | 2015-07-22 13:08 | karitotp | This was an accidental edit mistakenly removing bridge tag and I just reverted it. Thank you for reporting! | |
| 3 | 2015-07-26 19:43 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Well, I already fixed it after writing you and your revert has now broken the segment completely. There are only nodes without any way joining them. So I reverted your revert 32778070. Everything should be fine there now. | |
| 4 | 2015-07-30 16:16 | karitotp | Thank you to jump on this changes, good to know that all is fine there. | |
| 32764627 by karitotp @ 2015-07-20 21:33 | 1 | 2015-07-23 23:30 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | For info I've added a note at http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/402115 suggesting a local survey - what's there now is clearly wrong. |
| 2 | 2015-07-24 18:14 | karitotp | Thanks you! | |
| 32706500 by karitotp @ 2015-07-17 20:18 | 1 | 2015-07-18 03:55 | FTA ♦201 | I can assure you this is a one way road. |
| 2 | 2015-07-21 13:15 | karitotp | This was my oversight. I see you have reverted my change - thank you. | |
| 32677866 by karitotp @ 2015-07-16 15:58 | 1 | 2015-07-17 21:37 | chillly ♦819 | Another crap, remote edit by a Mapbox person.Please STOP making these WRONG remote edits without visiting the site. Why not send me a message asking if there is a problem rather than maaking work for me to correct this?i will revert this. |
| 2 | 2015-07-20 22:07 | lxbarth ♦42 | This was reverted by @chillly here http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32708331 | |
| 32683135 by karitotp @ 2015-07-16 19:48 | 1 | 2015-07-16 23:27 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | This road is one way, why have you removed the oneway tag from part of it??It is the exit from the underground part of the college carpark built a year or two ago (the underground part has not been surveyed yet). |
| 2 | 2015-07-17 13:58 | karitotp | I fixed my change. Thanks for your observation.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32698254 | |
| 31853851 by karitotp @ 2015-06-09 19:41 | 1 | 2015-06-15 01:09 | orson ♦5 | I'm curious why you split this road into two oneway streets and why they have different names? |
| 2 | 2015-06-16 21:04 | karitotp | Hi orson, thanks for pointing this out, the name has been fixed in this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31987976It is common practice to trace divided highways as separate oneways for more accurate routing. More information on the wiki. | |
| 31907988 by karitotp @ 2015-06-11 21:25 | 1 | 2015-06-15 01:22 | orson ♦5 | I'm curious why you split this road into two oneway streets and why they have different names? |