| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 68105213 by rkumreo @ 2019-03-13 16:02 | 1 | 2021-08-06 13:24 | tomhukins ♦245 | Thank you for helping to improve OpenStreetMap. In this change you marked https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236014093 as "foot=private" and "access=private" and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156619303 as "access=private". However, both ways also have "designa... |
| 2 | 2021-08-10 09:12 | rkumreo | Hi tomhukins, Apologies for the genuine miss from my end. I have missed checking the designated=public_footpath tag which contradicts with the changes that I made. I have now changed the access tag as a part of changeset (109450652). Thanks for letting me know. Regards,rkumreo | |
| 104039262 by rkumreo @ 2021-05-03 08:40 | 1 | 2021-05-03 09:07 | flo2154 ♦56 | I think this new service road is not necessary, as there is already a (more descriptive) parking area in that spot. |
| 2 | 2021-05-05 10:32 | rkumreo | Hi,Thanks for checking my edit. I have edited based on our driver gps data and available OSM imageries. As there is a missing segment inside the parking area I have digitized the segment as it would enable the users to navigate within the parking area which is in line with OSM wiki pages.(https:... | |
| 3 | 2021-05-07 14:52 | flo2154 ♦56 | You're right, this is fine. I made the tagging a bit more specific in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104325718Thanks for your clarification :) | |
| 97062152 by rkumreo @ 2021-01-06 16:48 | 1 | 2021-01-06 23:45 | GinaroZ ♦1,286 | Not sure why you didn't consider this road to have been moved accidentally... |
| 2 | 2021-01-07 08:29 | rkumreo | Hi,Thanks for checking into our edits. I have deleted the road segment as it was not aligning with the imagery. Apologies I have missed checking the history of the road. Going forward, I will make sure to consider the edit history before making the modifications. Thank you for the valuable suggest... | |
| 88699178 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-29 21:14 | 1 | 2020-12-02 19:16 | Polarbear ♦944 | Could you please explain why you added that turn restriction, based on which image from those you cited?I checked the situation on the ground, it is possible to turn, and there is even a turn lane.In case there was a temporary restriction, please map them only if you are willing to monitor them,... |
| 2 | 2020-12-04 07:15 | rkumreo | Hi,Thanks for checking into our edits. I have missed checking the lane markings. I have added the restrictions based on the sign board (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=u-PC3Hht2pdjVfMZVhRzyQ&focus=photo&lat=52.469351646197424&lng=13.490627688570612&z=16.779496173169072&x=... | |
| 88699097 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-29 21:11 | 1 | 2020-10-10 07:59 | abrensch ♦674 | Hello rkumreo,are you sure about that no-left-turn?looks for me in Mappiliary that the sign belongs to the actual crossing and not to the turning-bridge before?thanx, Arndt |
| 2 | 2020-10-13 03:31 | rkumreo | Hi Arndt,Thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have misinterpreted the sign board and added the turn restrictions. thanks for the suggestion. Please find the changeset for the reversion ( #92382222) . Always happy to learn from the community.Thanks,rkumreo | |
| 90835034 by rkumreo @ 2020-09-14 01:30 | 1 | 2020-09-14 10:41 | Martin Constantino–Bodin ♦123 | Hi,It seems that you added an unwanted change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11621028 as part of this changeset. Can you double-check that it was wanted?Thanks! |
| 2 | 2020-09-14 20:13 | ndm ♦889 | The changeset is too large to review.Having said that I have removed the turn restriction that you added in Bristol -- it is not visible on Bing Streetside. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-15 07:16 | rkumreo | Hi,Thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have accidentally created a large changeset. I have added the no left restriction at (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/200999896) based on the sign board (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=9arZG3EssGU7KdMeaiQLqy&focus=photo&lat=51.4... | |
| 4 | 2020-09-15 19:52 | ndm ♦889 | The Mapillary image is nothing to do with the Bristol edit I reverted. | |
| 5 | 2020-09-17 11:10 | rkumreo | Hi,Thanks for the response. I have made the Bristol edit based on the Mapillary street side (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=TJZ6qvf3m-77OvwEgRBmEA&focus=photo&lat=51.48095689253088&lng=-2.604912444951576&z=17), it will be helpful if the community can improvise our edits with... | |
| 90835171 by rkumreo @ 2020-09-14 01:40 | 1 | 2020-09-14 19:33 | ndm ♦889 | Why do you/Amazon keep adding this ludicrous turn restriction -- it makes no sense.I've already had to revert this change before.The sign you think you are using is for the next road to the south.Is there any way to add some note to Amazon logistics internal tasking to avoid this in... |
| 2 | 2020-09-15 07:21 | rkumreo | Hi ndm,Thanks for checking into our edits and making necessary corrections. This is a honest mistake, I will make sure not to repeat these mistakes. I will double check before making the edits to avoid any possible misinterpretation. My sincere apologies. regards,rkumreo | |
| 3 | 2020-09-15 19:54 | ndm ♦889 | In case you think I'm being grumpy -- this is almost exactly the same edit I told you about in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88701831 | |
| 4 | 2020-09-17 10:35 | rkumreo | Hi,Thanks for the feedback. My sincere apologies, That I have made the same mistake twice. You have already suggested the same edit before two months. I was confused with the sign board and created an unwanted turn restriction. I will take this as a learning from the community. Once again, apolo... | |
| 90242489 by rkumreo @ 2020-09-01 11:23 | 1 | 2020-09-05 13:26 | skyper ♦871 | HalloDu sprichst von Zufahrtsstraßen, warum verwendest Du dann nicht die korrekten Schlüssel-Wert-Kombination?Bitte sag mir von wem und wann Deine Änderungen überprüft wurden.Da nicht erwartet werden kann, dass alle Mitglieder der lokalen Community der englische... |
| 2 | 2020-09-07 11:08 | rkumreo | HiThanks for checking into our edits. As per the wiki, I have added the driveway as the road is leading to a single entity. I have added the other road as service, since it is leading to a parking lot and a larger house, we are not sure of the type of entities it is leading to. All our edits are ... | |
| 89037730 by rkumreo @ 2020-08-06 12:03 | 1 | 2020-08-06 19:19 | TheEditor101 ♦21 | Be careful with this new bing imagery, it's lovely and clear, but has a bit of an offset.I'm using an offset of 2.46, -3.82 in iD to correct it around Aberdeen. Your mileage may vary. |
| 2 | 2020-08-07 11:53 | rkumreo | Hi Thanks for checking into our edits. I will use this info while editing in this vicinity. Always happy to learn from the community.Thanks,rkumreo | |
| 88702209 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-30 00:12 | 1 | 2020-08-05 22:19 | GinaroZ ♦1,286 | Think you made a mistake here - it's the entirety of Tron Square which is one way: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/nJmlUQYrxYvegrec-pvVXA - I've fixed it. |
| 2 | 2020-08-06 05:13 | rkumreo | HiThanks for checking into our edits. Apologies , I have misinterpreted the direction of the signboard (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=xfiIl_co7Utt4iMdKCaieA&focus=photo) and added the one way. I will make sure to perform the complete analysis of sign boards before mapping the direction... | |
| 88701831 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-29 23:41 | 1 | 2020-07-30 19:25 | ndm ♦889 | I've reverted this change:1). I've surveyed this area2). the turn restiction would mean no one could ever drive into the road3). I think you have been looking at a sign that relates to the Gloucester Road/Shellmor Avenue junction which is the next turning and is mapped correctly. |
| 2 | 2020-07-31 12:52 | rkumreo | Hi ndmThanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have misinterpreted the sign board (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=v586_v-tcj4YrHJzpoG3Ew&focus=photo&lat=51.53892835606964&lng=-2.5664466340118706&z=17&x=0.5024307134434322&y=0.5518552877943146&zoom=1.557093... | |
| 88701506 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-29 23:15 | 1 | 2020-07-30 19:21 | ndm ♦889 | I've removed the turn restriction -- there's nothing visible on Mapilary. |
| 2 | 2020-07-31 12:46 | rkumreo | HiThanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have misinterpreted the sign board (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=c4lfxdvqXzBEqv5fh5Z6Gw&focus=photo&lat=51.54720881787793&lng=-2.437757531441889&z=16.779496173169072&x=0.44833049579719636&y=0.4799504461017074&z... | |
| 88700216 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-29 21:55 | 1 | 2020-07-30 00:18 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | I think you might be mixing up Fountayne Street with Vyner Street.You can't turn left into Vyner Street from Haxby Road because Vyner Street is oneway towards Haxby Road, and there are signs alerting you to that no left turn.I am not aware of any signs or any reason you cannot turn left int... |
| 2 | 2020-07-30 15:58 | rkumreo | Hi Thanks for the suggestion, I have mistakenly added the turn restriction. Please find the changeset(88742062) for the suggested corrections. Thanks for the quick correction. Always happy to learn from the community.Thanks,rkumreo | |
| 88702168 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-30 00:09 | 1 | 2020-07-30 00:26 | GinaroZ ♦1,286 | What evidence do you have for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4854371 being a one way road? |
| 2 | 2020-07-30 15:49 | rkumreo | Hi GinaroZThanks for checking into our edits. I have added the one way based on the (mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=k21vxzl-WrvNk7-XlFY4nQ&focus=photo&lat=55.97453382877467&lng=-3.2211924341179383&z=17.62269415743672&x=0.4102480810620236&y=0.583688990522877... | |
| 85084873 by rkumreo @ 2020-05-12 11:50 | 1 | 2020-05-15 18:31 | ACarlotti ♦158 | Is Vinery Road actually a oneway street? If so, then it should be tagged as such, and this relation is then redundant. If not, then the oneway:bicycle tag on Vinery Road is redundant, and it would seem strange for there to be a restriction on the left-turn in but not the right-turn in. |
| 2 | 2020-05-18 17:00 | rkumreo | Hi ACarlotti,Thanks for looking into our edits. This edit is partially based on the driver feedback and available resources. We do not have sufficient resources validating the directionality of Vinery Road. As per the available mapillary data (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=LazDC-i5h7djbHd... | |
| 85143099 by rkumreo @ 2020-05-13 11:48 | 1 | 2020-05-15 18:54 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I'm a bit confused about your intentions here. The no-right-turn restriction doesn't seem to make sense, and effectively duplicates the constraint of the no_u_turn restriction on Long Road. The other two no_u_turn restrictions are probably not necessary for correct routing, and shouldn... |
| 2 | 2020-05-18 16:47 | rkumreo | Hi ACarlotti,Thanks for checking into our edits. I have added the no u-turn restriction for Lime Avenue, based on the mapillary sign board. I have accidentally added a node on residential area which was a mistake from our end. Please find the changeset (85394177) for the suggested edit and let m... | |
| 79692997 by rkumreo @ 2020-01-17 10:57 | 1 | 2020-01-17 16:12 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | Hi, you have created a routable link along what is clearly a private driveway. Please add access=private.Also barrier=yes is meaningless, first ask yourself what it is likely to be and in this situation anything other than a gate is unlikely. The gate can be seen on imagery.Also please update ... |
| 2 | 2020-01-22 08:32 | rkumreo | Hi Trigpoint,Thanks for looking into my edit. It was a honest mistake. Made necessary changes,please refer the changeset for modifications (The new changeset is 79902235 ) .Let me know in case you have any further suggestions.Thanks,rkumreo | |
| 76676372 by rkumreo @ 2019-11-06 04:15 | 1 | 2019-11-07 07:47 | BCNorwich ♦5,009 | Hello rkumreo, Inadvertent duplication here, you've placed Way: 742385233 directly on top of Way: 742385141 I've left the duplication, hopefully you'll be able to correct it. Need any help please just ask.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2019-11-08 16:34 | rkumreo | Hi Bernard,Thanks for looking into my edit. It was an honest mistake. Deleted the duplicate road segment refer the changeset (76821922).Will take this as learning for the future edits. Please let me know if any changes are to be made. Always happy to learn from the community.Regards,rkumre... | |
| 74860481 by rkumreo @ 2019-09-24 14:02 | 1 | 2019-09-24 22:17 | ndm ♦889 | I can't see any no U-turn signs on Bing Streetside or Mapillary -- could you please post a link. |
| 2 | 2019-09-25 11:32 | rkumreo | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit. Here is the link of the mapillary street view(https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=7LohCOKSEDzezoxql4m9nA&focus=photo&lat=51.477449443239266&lng=-2.5364809110784563&z=17&x=0.5107296349306554&y=0.5668570055039049&zoom=0) with whic... | |
| 3 | 2019-09-25 12:06 | ndm ♦889 | Great - didn't see the restriction on the traffic light - just looked at the bollard :-) | |
| 70030884 by rkumreo @ 2019-05-08 14:17 | 1 | 2019-07-05 16:30 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | Hello,It looks like your addition of the tag motor_vehicle=yes to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/688650745 has the same issue as previously discussed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71668172 . Can you have a look at where you've added motor_vehicle=yes elsewhere without evidenc... |
| 2 | 2019-07-09 09:23 | rkumreo | Hi Andy,As per your suggestion the motor_vehicle=yes that was added to the track roads have been reverted. I checked all these type of edits and reverted wherever necessary. Thanks for your insights. Changeset- 72045657Regards,rkumreo | |
| 3 | 2019-07-09 09:51 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | Hello rkumreo,Thanks for that.Best Regards,Andy | |
| 71510874 by rkumreo @ 2019-06-22 14:18 | 1 | 2019-06-22 14:21 | Jason Levesque ♦1 | red car in my DRiveway on 18 pozzebon Cresent Sault ste marie |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 13:56 | rkumreo | Hi,I could not understand the comment provided by you. Could you please explain the details so that I can understand it better.Regards,rkumreo | |
| 3 | 2019-07-04 23:12 | freebeer ♦1,598 | it looks to be a rubbish comment as i see nothing with that (corrected) name in the area.i would make an un-funny comment about the flint michigan usa water quality and its effect on registered mappers, but as i zoom out i see stroke-on-tent which i immediately recognise as a whole different cou... | |
| 4 | 2019-07-05 10:45 | rkumreo | Thanks for the response freebeer. Ignoring the earlier comment.Regards,rkumreo | |
| 71668172 by rkumreo @ 2019-06-27 10:55 | 1 | 2019-06-27 12:43 | Richard ♦223 | Hi - you've added motor_vehicle=yes to way #159381675. What evidence do you have that there is a legal right of way for motor vehicles along this path? https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/54906 suggests that it's a bridleway, in which case there is no legal right of access. |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 13:17 | rkumreo | Hi Richard,Thank you for providing feedback on the edit. The edit on "motor_vehicle=yes" attribute was made as vehicles were visible near the houses in the satellite imagery. As per community feedback on not to add "motor_vehicle=yes" tag until complete evidence is available,... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-01 15:51 | Richard ♦223 | Thanks. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here.motor_vehicle=yes does not mean "vehicles have been seen here". It means "there is a legal right of access for vehicles".Seeing vehicles on imagery does not mean that there is a legal right of access for all ve... | |
| 4 | 2019-07-02 07:43 | rkumreo | HiThanks a lot for your inputs Richard, now I understand how legal access tags work in UK. Our team is notified with your inputs and are working on removing all the motor_vehicle tags added by us in past two months. Looking forward to lean more from local community of UK.Thanks again,rkumr... | |
| 71678768 by rkumreo @ 2019-06-27 16:19 | 1 | 2019-06-28 14:18 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | Hello,What was the source for the access change here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 12:42 | rkumreo | Hi Andy,The edit was made based on our delivery agent GPS traces and the vehicles that are visible in the satellite imagery. But since the community has told that this is not the right way of adding motor_vehicle tag, reverting my changes.Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/717... | |
| 3 | 2019-06-29 16:12 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | Hi rkumreo,Thanks for that.Regards,Andy | |
| 71702101 by rkumreo @ 2019-06-28 10:22 | 1 | 2019-06-28 12:23 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | Hi, when converting a way with defined access rights to another please ensure you maintain those.The bridleway link in the existing way information will show you that a bridleway implies also foot and bicycle access,The correct tag for horses is horse=yes and note that OSM tags are lowercase.C... |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 13:53 | rkumreo | Hi Phil,Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have changed the access tags as per your suggestion. Below is the changesethttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71736289Please let me know if there are any other suggestionsRegards,rkumreo | |
| 70079630 by rkumreo @ 2019-05-09 15:57 | 1 | 2019-05-09 19:52 | ndm ♦889 | I've marked these as service roads and used tunnel=building_passage (removing the layer=-1) |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 13:38 | rkumreo | Hi,Thank you for the feedback and correcting the edits. I will ensure that this feedback is considered in my further edits.Please let me know if there are any other suggestions.Regards,rkumreo | |
| 70079033 by rkumreo @ 2019-05-09 15:40 | 1 | 2019-05-09 19:56 | ndm ♦889 | Probably driveways - but I've marked them as service for the moment. The area's been well surveyed all residential roads are already added. |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 13:32 | rkumreo | Hi,Thank you for your feedback and correcting the road classification.Please let me know if there are any other suggestions.Regards,rkumreo | |
| 70078381 by rkumreo @ 2019-05-09 15:22 | 1 | 2019-05-09 20:01 | ndm ♦889 | Removed extra gate you added -- there's already a lift gate. Added parking. Marked most of it as parking_aisle |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 13:31 | rkumreo | Hi,Thank you for the feedback and correcting the mistakes in edits performed by me.Please let me know if there are any other suggestions.Regards,rkumreo. | |
| 70287377 by rkumreo @ 2019-05-15 17:44 | 1 | 2019-05-16 07:27 | BCNorwich ♦5,009 | Hi, what form does the barrier you tagged on this node take, is it a gate? Also what access is allowed/disallowed? Without this information the barrier tag is not much use.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2019-05-16 07:29 | BCNorwich ♦5,009 | Sorry this is the node, Node: 6476145274 | |
| 3 | 2019-05-16 15:14 | yaswap ♦68 | Hi Bernard,Thanks for looking into our edits. The node was added as per ESRI clarity beta. But as per the latest aerial imagery sources it looks like the barrier no more exists at this point. We are removing the barrier which was added by our editor.Please let us know if there is anything th... | |
| 69974814 by rkumreo @ 2019-05-07 12:31 | 1 | 2019-05-08 17:08 | SK53 ♦865 | Hi, We noticed that you added these new roads which is very welcome, but you did it in a highly unconventional way which suggests that something may have been missed in the training you received. Please always add road names on the actual way tagged with highway. Do not add them to a large inaccurat... |
| 2 | 2019-05-13 08:26 | jguthula ♦65 | Hi SK53,Sorry for a late response and thanks for looking into these edits. Can you provide more information on what the editor went wrong in this case? My team member went ahead and added the missing roads. Since we didn't have a open resource data to add street names in UK we requested... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-13 14:01 | SK53 ♦865 | Hi Jothirnadh,Thanks for getting back to me, and in particular as a supervisor.I owe you & your team member (rkmreo) an apology as it was not them who mapped the areas covered by the added roads as buildings (it was another mapper concerned with having geolocated names: a local taxi prov... | |
| 4 | 2019-05-14 09:39 | jguthula ♦65 | Thanks for responding back Jerry, no worries at all. I can totally understand how complicated it is to dig into all edits in one location. We are always open to coordinate with the community and learn more from them. We believe together we can improve the quality of OSM and make a better world. ... |