| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 133082508 by mubshh @ 2023-02-27 11:03 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Falsernet ♦151 | Painted mini roundabouts should be mapped using a highway=mini_roundabout node and not a circular way. Additionally, all roundabout ways should be tagged junction=roundabout and not oneway=yes. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | deepikja ♦58 | Hello,Thank you for providing feedback on our edits and making the necessary corrections. Apologies for the delay in responding to your comment; we were unable to retrieve the feedback shared by the community users owing to a technical issue. We acknowledge that this is an editor error. Based ... | |
| 132154999 by mubshh @ 2023-02-06 12:12 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | skyper ♦871 | `oneway=yes` were deleted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134486636 |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | deepikja ♦58 | Hi Skyper, The direction oneway=yes in this changeset was removed as part of our second quality review, as discussed in changeset 129308457. We reviewed the 1296 change sets tasks created between Decemeber-2022 to March 2023 edited in the Germany area and reversed 126 changesets based on your an... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | skyper ♦871 | Hi Deepikja,yes, thanks for the review. I just mentioned the changeset for transparency.But how about https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/132105742 and https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/132105753?Regards,skyper | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | deepikja ♦58 | Hi Skyper,We have performed the necessary deep dive and corrected the attributes in the changesets you have suggested. Below are the changeset links for your reference. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135758127https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135757521https://www.openstreetmap... | |
| 132105742 by mubshh @ 2023-02-05 11:44 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | skyper ♦871 | Hello mubshh,which sources did you use? Please, always mention the used sources in your changeset.Are you sure that this small part is `oneway=yes`? What does the user who added `oneway=no` say about it? Please, do not tell me you forgot to ask.How about bicycles? Are they allowed to use the s... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | deepikja ♦58 | Hi Skyper, The editor has utilized mapilllary overlay dated 2022 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4508465865834415&focus=photo&lat=51.437563317391&lng=6.7740967043478&z=17&x=0.5633523102543057&y=0.48268028197895874&zoom=1.8029606631930022 to define and conclude the d... | |
| 132305753 by mubshh @ 2023-02-09 12:41 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | skyper ♦871 | Hello mubshh,the traffic signal (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10184105927) does not make sense, especially with `traffic_signals:direction=backward`.Please, tell me why this was not caught by your internal review and the special review as promised in comment 15 of https://www.openstreetmap... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | deepikja ♦58 | Hello Skyper, We apologize for the incomplete edit. The editor here was primarily concerned with changing the dual carriageway and failed to examine the traffic signal. In the change set #135751762 referring to open street camera, we have made the necessary adjustments. As part of the JOSM s... | |
| 133693513 by mubshh @ 2023-03-15 05:26 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | trigpoint ♦2,659 | Hi, this edit has gone a bit wrong.Why have you deleted the drive-through?Cheers Phil |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | mubshh | Hi trigpoint,Thank you for reviewing our changeset and flagging out the issue. It's an honest mistake from our end. I have made the necessary changes in the changeset. Always happy to learn from the community. Thanks once again, looking forward to learn more from you.Regards,mubshh | |
| 131985992 by mubshh @ 2023-02-02 04:34 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Langlaeufer ♦1,540 | the connection between sidewalk and street is not private --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131985992 |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | mubshh | Hello,Thank You for looking into my changeset and making the edit. I added private access to the segment due to the presence of lift gate at both the ends and since no other entities where present before the gate I did not split the segment. Thank You for your insights , looking forward to learn... | |
| 127773508 by mubshh @ 2022-10-19 10:43 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | OSM_RogerWilco ♦797 | Hi mubshh,Why private access? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | mubshh | Hi OSM_RogerWilco, Thankyou for reviewing my changeset. I have added access=private since the road leads to multiple residential entities and serves as a common entrance to all the entities . Incase you want me to change based on some evidence I'll make it from my end. Thank you again, always ... |