| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69455215 by kmarjbh @ 2019-04-22 14:06 | 1 | 2022-02-14 15:13 | voschix ♦183 | Please do not insert roads from imagery when you cannot check accessibility from other sources. Some of the roads you inserted are inside a big fire-brigade compound and strictly off-limits for the general public. At least add a "fixme" tag stating that you are unsure baout access. |
| 2 | 2022-02-16 12:37 | mundlk ♦19 | Hi voschix,Thanks for flagging this error. Apologies from our end. Thanks for making the necessary changes and happy to learn from you. We will make sure that these errors shall not repeat. P.S: Replying on behalf of our editor as the editor is no longer a part of our organization. Best ... | |
| 71982807 by kmarjbh @ 2019-07-07 13:46 | 1 | 2020-11-16 20:08 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello,Whatever imagery was used to add https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/702240005 it seems very odd? It doesn't match most imagery at all and doesn't match my recollection either. OS OpenData StreetView is broadly correct here I think.Best Regards,Andy |
| 70668308 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-27 16:42 | 1 | 2020-10-18 17:05 | chillly ♦819 | The new residential you added is definately a driveway (highway=service, service = driveway). I have changed it |
| 71982350 by kmarjbh @ 2019-07-07 13:28 | 1 | 2020-09-21 15:15 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello - the imagery you have used here is quite badly offset. You can use OS OpenData StreetView here to align both north-south and east-west. |
| 73189034 by kmarjbh @ 2019-08-09 11:16 | 1 | 2019-08-09 18:51 | ndm ♦889 | Why are you adding oneway=yes -- there are no oneway markings -- please check Bing Streetside. |
| 2 | 2019-08-20 11:47 | kmarjbh | Hi ndm, Thanks for looking into my edit. I have given the tag of oneway=yes based upon the mapillary street imagery with latest date where clearly we can see 1 way lane marking and 1 way street board. Let me know in case you have any concerns. I will be happy to learn from the community. Reg... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-25 09:13 | ndm ♦889 | Your oneway was correct when I surveyed it -- I also removed the oneway:bicycle=no near Royal Fort Road that you had left. | |
| 4 | 2019-08-26 12:00 | kmarjbh | Hi ndm,Thank you for the update. Let me know in case you have any further suggestions. Would be happy to help.Regards,kmarjbh | |
| 73189919 by kmarjbh @ 2019-08-09 11:43 | 1 | 2019-08-09 18:51 | ndm ♦889 | Why are you adding oneway=yes -- there are no oneway markings -- please check Bing Streetside. |
| 2 | 2019-08-20 11:50 | kmarjbh | Hi ndm, Thanks for looking into this edit. I had made this edit based upon the bing aerial imagery, where I could see a do not enter board. In case you have any local knowledge, please let me know, I will revert the edit. Let me know in case you have any further suggestions. Always happy to lear... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-25 09:16 | ndm ♦889 | You are correct that there is a no-entry sign on St Augustine's Parade forbidding entry -- this was already implemented as a very small section of oneway=yes.However, there are no oneway signs on Denmark Street itself -- it is (theoretically) possible to turn and drive back in the opposite... | |
| 67838699 by kmarjbh @ 2019-03-06 10:41 | 1 | 2019-07-05 15:52 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello,What was the source of the access change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/75172615/history ?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2019-07-09 10:39 | kmarjbh | Hi Andy,Thanks for your suggestion. As per you request I am reverting back my edits made on access tags. Do let me know if you have any further questions.Changeset=72007588Regards,kmarjbh. | |
| 3 | 2019-07-09 11:41 | SomeoneElse ♦13,404 | Hello kmarjbh,Thanks for thatBest Regards,Andy | |
| 69509427 by kmarjbh @ 2019-04-24 02:49 | 1 | 2019-06-25 17:34 | Constable ♦1,294 | Good afternoon, could you please look at this note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/182455 , which is about one of your edits?thanks |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:29 | kmarjbh | Hi,Thanks for commenting on the changeset. The note that was mentioned was at some other place(The note was created 5 years ago). The road segments created in this changeset are according to the latest imagery Bing. Please let us know if there are any suggestions.Regards,kmarjbh. | |
| 3 | 2019-07-02 13:36 | Constable ♦1,294 | Hi, may bad, note I was referring to is this onehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1824555Thanks! | |
| 4 | 2019-07-02 13:39 | Constable ♦1,294 | Seems like road section was tagged as access=private by another amazon guy few days ago, as per changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685540504/historyIf this one's private, the other two roads crossing it should be tagged as private as well.Generally speaking, I think amazon guys do ... | |
| 70547516 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 11:04 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:46 | ndm ♦889 | Demoted to service |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:21 | kmarjbh | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments which looks like a residential community. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. OS data was not considered when this edit was made. Going forward we will use this resource and make change... | |
| 70548691 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 11:41 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:34 | ndm ♦889 | Demoted to service |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:21 | kmarjbh | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments which looks like a residential community. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. OS data was not considered when this edit was made. Going forward we will use this resource and make change... | |
| 70545629 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 10:07 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:57 | ndm ♦889 | Demoted to service and driveway |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:21 | kmarjbh | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments which looks like a residential community. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. OS data was not considered when this edit was made. Going forward we will use this resource and make change... | |
| 70545310 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 09:58 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:59 | ndm ♦889 | Not a good idea to draw roads through buildings. |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:11 | kmarjbh | Hi ndm,Thanks for reviewing the edit, the roads were added as per bing aerial imagery. Thanks for changing the alignment of the road segments drawn in this change set.Please let us know if there are any suggestions.Regards,kmarjbh. | |
| 70517319 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-22 14:18 | 1 | 2019-05-25 13:07 | trigpoint ♦2,375 | Only part of this is paved, I have set the remaining unsurfaced section to track |
| 2 | 2019-06-11 12:59 | yaswap ♦68 | Hi Phil,Thanks for looking into the edit. The edit was made based on the aerial imagery available. But yes, the whole segment is not a paved track. Thanks for editing it. The editor might have missed splitting the segment before changing the Highway tag. We will take care of these kind of edits ... | |
| 70548538 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 11:36 | 1 | 2019-05-23 12:08 | DaveF ♦1,568 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691952101I don't think this is a looped road. It#s two separate roads leading to individual houses. |
| 2 | 2019-05-23 12:51 | yaswap ♦68 | Hi DaveF,Thanks for looking into the edit. Yes, the road looks like it is leading to single entities from different ways.There is no proof to confirm that it is a loop. Thanks for the review again. We are changing it back accordingly as per your suggestion.Please let us know if there is anyt... | |
| 67139457 by kmarjbh @ 2019-02-12 17:51 | 1 | 2019-02-12 19:45 | ndm ♦889 | https://binged.it/2tjGxQ7 - is the gate new? |
| 2 | 2019-02-19 11:53 | yaswap ♦68 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into our edits. In Bing street side it looked like a gated community so added the gate at the entrance. From your comment we did a deep dive and it doesn't look like a gate. I will go ahead and remove it.Thanks again for your inputs. Please let us know if there are... | |
| 3 | 2019-02-20 21:34 | ndm ♦889 | Thanks for the extra review. |