| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74558990 by purbitap @ 2019-09-17 06:09 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Cebderby ♦313 | I see you've not added names for any of these roads or removed the construction=residential tags, or changed the limits of the construction or residential areas - did you survey the site to see what is actually in occupation, or just change them all arbitrarily? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | purbitap | Hi Cebderby,Thanks for looking into my edit. This edit was based on the GPS traces of our driver partner. However I understood your concern and have made the edit "Removed the construction = residential" tag . Couldn't add any information related to road names as there is no source... | |
| 74178805 by purbitap @ 2019-09-06 14:12 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | trigpoint ♦2,659 | Hi, just wondering why you have removed the private tags from this service road?In my local knowledge access=private was incorrect, this is a public footpath, however it should be motor_vehicle=private.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | purbitap | Hi trigpoint,Thank you for looking into my edit. As per my understanding the access= private tag was incorrect and hence I removed it. I am aligned with you view that it can be a public footpath, however, due to the lack of evidence I did not add the motor vehicle=private tag. I request you to m... | |
| 70654237 by purbitap @ 2019-05-27 09:13 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,744 | Hello,It looks like your change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/509675785/history has the same issue as previously described at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71560980 . Can you have a look at where you've added motor_vehicle=yes elsewhere without evidence and remove it?Best ... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | purbitap | Hi Andy,Thanks for looking into my edit. As suggested by the community, we ran the overpass query and modified the motor_vehicle=yes tag to unspecified. Let me know in case you have any further suggestions. Apologies for a delayed response.Regards,purbitap --- \... | |
| 62055358 by purbitap @ 2018-08-28 01:38 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | southglos ♦121 | These are clearly footpaths rather than residential roads; I've re-tagged. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | purbitap | Hi,We apologize for the delayed response. As per the aerial image it is clearly a footpath. Its a clear mistake from our side. We will make sure that these kind of errors wont happen in coming future.Thanks for making the edit. Regards,purbitap | |
| 62093579 by purbitap @ 2018-08-29 06:57 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | pintoch ♦18 | hi! thanks for this. The road you have traced actually goes further and connects to the main road up north (I have cycled there yesterday and realized that this road was not on the map). I have updated this. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | purbitap | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We apologize for the delayed response. The road segment here was added as per the latest imagery available. We didn't extend the road as there was no proper proof. Thanks for making the changes. We value the local users over remote sources.Please le... | |
| 71560980 by purbitap @ 2019-06-24 13:09 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,744 | Hello,Can you please explain your change to the access tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/468998080 ?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | purbitap | Hi Andy,With reference to the motor vehicles parked in the satellite imagery added motor_vehicle access tags to this road. But as per community request reverting my changes. Do let me know if you have any further questions.Changeset#71754748Regards,purbitap | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,744 | Hello,Thanks for thatBest Regards,Andy | |
| 71162717 by purbitap @ 2019-06-12 02:38 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | gurglypipe ♦1,033 | Should this road actually be called ‘Park Lane’? But then there’s another road parallel to it which is already ‘Park Lane’. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | gurglypipe ♦1,033 | OpenData StreetView says ‘Park La’, but that’s just because it’s truncated. Pretty sure it should be ‘Park Lane’. I’ve made the fix in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71210381. Anyone with local knowledge who knows better can improve it. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | yaswap ♦68 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added the data as per the OS data. But yes, the same road name was already added to the secondary road on the left. The name of the street that was added could be different.Thanks for editing it. We always trust the local edits over remote sources.Rega... | |
| 70464722 by purbitap @ 2019-05-21 06:14 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | LivingWithDragons ♦55 | You ever so slightly modified a service road, you did not add it. Please make your changeset comments accurate, and do not blindly use aerial imagery where roads may have previously been mapped with a GPS as a source. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | yaswap ♦68 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We apologies for the mistake here. We will connect with the editor and have a word to add comments clearly from next time.Regards,yaswap. | |
| 70465416 by purbitap @ 2019-05-21 06:44 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | LivingWithDragons ♦55 | As this is within a construction area, you should be really cautious of modifying and adding roads from imagery alone. It is possible that the imagery is outdated. Please focus on ground-surveying ijn such areas. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapb... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | yaswap ♦68 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. The edit was made based on the latest imagery available and as per our internal image sources (latest). We will update the editors to specify the image source going forward.Regards,yaswap. | |
| 70469990 by purbitap @ 2019-05-21 09:09 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | LivingWithDragons ♦55 | Please could you be clearer on what imagery you use. This looks like it could potentially be a service road. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70469990 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | jguthula ♦65 | Hi LivingWithDragons,Thanks for looking into this edit. The workflow which our editors follow, includes verification of all satellite imagery sources that are existing in iD. That is the reason the imagery_used has two different imagery sources. In this particular case the imagery is not good en... | |
| 62032050 by purbitap @ 2018-08-27 08:35 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | trigpoint ♦2,659 | Hi, thank you for this addition however please be careful and considerate of existing objects. In this case there is an existing track which you have crossed without connecting or tidying.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | riteshaw ♦7 | Hi Phil,Thanks for the update, for some reasons this issue didn't come to our notice and we apologize for the delay. We made the edit and we've taken appropriate action on the editor who made this mistake Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. We are always... |