| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 109496235 by rojganes @ 2021-08-11 06:16 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | EricJRW ♦3 | Hi @rojganes, I'm curious about something. In cases where a subdivision has a gate, and that gate is open during the day, but (I assume) closed at night, wouldn't the access type be more accurate as "Permissive"? This has been my assumption, and as I find areas like this, I have ... |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | EricJRW ♦3 | PS. I read the info at your link. That's a very cool data source for OSM. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | abvincen ♦34 | Hi, Thank you for leaving a note on my changeset. "Permissive" is an inappropriate tag to add here, this is a private community with privately owned roads. Permissive access may allow general traffic from Waters Edge Drive to Meadowlark Lane via this private community since it acts as ... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | EricJRW ♦3 | Thank you for this info. I will make the change. EW | |
| 106132232 by rojganes @ 2021-06-10 06:29 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | jleedev ♦305 | This road is certainly named "Lysle Avenue". Some street signs omit the suffix, but that's not the proper name. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | abvincen ♦34 | Hi,Thank you for providing the information.Apologies for editing the suffix of the Roadname,I've made the necessary changes in the changeset (#106203600).Looking forward to learn more from you!Regards,abvincen --- Published using OSMCha: htt... | |
| 68660770 by rojganes @ 2019-03-29 10:57 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | DUGA ♦551 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/680308539It is incorrect, the parking aisle never connects to the fire lane (main entrance/exit service road) |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | rojganes | Hi, Thank you for reviewing and correcting the edit. Apologies for the misalignment of the road, will make sure not to repeat such errors. Looking forward to learn more from you. Regards, rojganes | |
| 99511736 by rojganes @ 2021-02-18 09:51 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | ezekielf ♦90 | I believe this change should be reverted. A paved road is visible on the NAIP imagery (the newest in this area), not a dirt track. Looks like a new development is being build. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99511736 |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thank you for reviewing the edit and providing the information about the area, I've made the necessary changes in the changeset(# 99577199). Looking forward to learn more from you.Regards,rojganes. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | ezekielf ♦90 | Thank you! | |
| 97539914 by rojganes @ 2021-01-15 07:38 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | jleedev ♦305 | The bing streetside imagery indicates that North 4th Street is oneway all the way to Hamilton Avenue, so I've replaced the turn restriction. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thank you for reviewing and correcting the edit, Apologies for the miss in bing streetside imagery. Will ensure not to repeat such mistakes, Looking forward to learn more from you.Regards,rojganes. | |
| 95300148 by rojganes @ 2020-12-04 14:18 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | TravGW ♦355 | Ok so this is going to take some explaining. First of all the imagery your are using (Bing in this case) is outdated. Here in the vast brush lands of Texas most imagery will be many years out of date. You best bet is to choose Texas NAIP Imagery 2018 or the Maxar Imagery. Sometimes Maxar will be the... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thank you for reviewing the edit and the information about the area. I've made the necessary changes according to your information under changeset(#95394799). Will follow the same going forward. Looking forward to learn more from you.Regards,Rojganes. | |
| 90143855 by rojganes @ 2020-08-30 12:23 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | rojganes | Apologies for using internal terminology on OSM, the correct comment for the changeset is Added driveway #MapWithAI & #https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Facebook_AI-Assisted_Road_Tracing |
| 85089611 by rojganes @ 2020-05-12 13:27 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | rojganes | Hi, Please find the updated comment "Added Height Restriction" for the Changeset: 85089611.Regards, Rojganes. |
| 83976536 by rojganes @ 2020-04-23 05:48 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | chachafish ♦462 | Howdy. Thank you for your additions to the map. Did you mean to put a space between the two words in the name here? |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thanks for reviewing the edit. Apologies for the mistake. I've made the changes under changeset(#84178491). I Will ensure not to repeat the error again. Looking forward to learning more from you.Regards,rojganes. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | chachafish ♦462 | Thanks, buddy :) | |
| 69893881 by rojganes @ 2019-05-05 04:17 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | freebeer ♦1,598 | hallo amazon,it has happened here too.by using the iD editor to add a turn restriction, you have again introduced buggy map data by duplicating part of the way starting at this (buggy) relation.are you able to fix this? i fixed the last time i reported this, but i will not have the time... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thanks for your comments. I've fixed this duplicate under changeset #75754019. We are resolving such errors in a reactive manner. Request you to flag them if you notice any such errors, please don't fix them. As most of our data backup is linked to iD, we are unable to switch the ed... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | freebeer ♦1,598 | looks good. i was worried that the newly-added overlapping road was lacking connectivity to two sets of pedestrian crossings, but josm worked with the old segment. there were no other conflicts as far as differences between the overlapping ways here, as there were in the previous overlap where i n... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thanks for confirming. Looking forward to learning from you.Regards,rojganes | |
| 75269521 by rojganes @ 2019-10-04 08:56 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! A restriction relation must have three (or more) roles (from, to, via), see relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9961760. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thanks for your suggestion.I have fixed this changeset # 75499765.Let me know if you have any other suggestions.Regards,rojganes --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/75269521 | |
| 75242184 by rojganes @ 2019-10-03 15:38 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! A restriction relation must have three (or more) roles (from, to, via), see your relation. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | rojganes | Hi,Thanks for your suggestion.I have fixed this changeset #75269521.Let me know if you have any other suggestions.Regards,rojganes. | |
| 72651815 by rojganes @ 2019-07-25 15:29 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | sannkc ♦107 | Hello! I was reviewing some St. Louis edits and happened to see this changeset. I can see what prompted the change. There's definitely a sign that prohibits commercial vehicles from accessing the street unless making deliveries.What I'm unsure about is the access=destination tag. That ... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | gseethar ♦67 | Hi Sannkc,Thanks a lot for your suggestion. We will definitely take this up and perform our analysis and get back to you at the earliest.Please continue to provide your valuable suggestions that will help us further improve our edits.Regards,Ganesh |