| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78809546 by shadty @ 2019-12-24 08:54 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | skquinn ♦812 | When changing a highway to one way (adding oneway=yes) please double check the lane counts and remove any tags such as lanes:forward, lanes:backward, turn:lanes:forward, turn:lanes:backward, etc that indicate attributes of the road segment when it carried two-way traffic. Unfortunately, you will hav... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | shadty | Hi,Thanks for your inputs and edits. This is a miss from our end, we are currently considering your inputs in our editing process and also using JOSM for re-modelling roads. Thanks again and apologies for our miss.Regards,shadty | |
| 79406036 by shadty @ 2020-01-10 07:23 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,043 | On at least 10 ways you changed the attributes maxspeed:forward and maxspeed:backward to maxspeed and maxspeed:1.There are also two bicycle routes that seem to be broken - both directions run along the northbound oneway street.Please fix this! |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,As part of my edit, I had to split the segment to dual carriageway during which I had to remove the forward and backward tags. As the neighboring segment had only one cycle path, I had continued to add it. However if you suggest I shall add it on both ends.Please advice!Looking forward ... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,043 | The maxspeed tags are now definitely wrong, please add only the correct one to each way.About the cycle path - check the situation on ground. Currently there is no cycleway tagged and the route makes cyclists use a oneway street in the wrong direction. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | sskalyan ♦67 | Hi,I have fixed cycle routes by assigning north and south bound routes. But, we are not clear of maxspeed tags since we are remote mappers we didn't tampered existing tags. We just followed tagging methodology of adjoining segment (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/399543200#map=18/33.726... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,043 | The speed limits where all properly tagged before your edit. Just check the history of all the ways. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,043 | Can we still expect you to fix this issue? | |
| 7 | ~ 6 years ago | sskalyan ♦67 | Hi,I have modified maxspeed tags uniformly according to connecting segments. changeset:80457805. Please let us know if you have any other issues.Regards,Kalyan | |
| 8 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,043 | That's still not correct.E.g. this wayhttp://osm.org/way/399677993 had a 'maxspeed:backward=55', but your new way running in opposite direction has 'maxspeed=45'. | |
| 9 | ~ 6 years ago | sskalyan ♦67 | Hi,The segment you have mentioned is a child segment created by our editor while creating dual carriageway. Parent segment for the mentioned segment is way: 399677993https://snipboard.io/HKJugc.jpg (please refer to the URL for deep history screenshot) which is then a bidirectional road has thr... | |
| 10 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,043 | You deleted valuable information. There are plenty of sources (e.g. Mapillary) to check that the formerly tagged maxspeed:forward and maxspeed:backward were indeed correct. The 'maxspeed' tag was there, but simply overridden by the two more specific tags. Please stop destroying data ... | |
| 11 | ~ 6 years ago | sskalyan ♦67 | Hi Mueschel,I didn't understand your point on how to add maxspeed:forward and maxspeed:backward for a uni-directional road. Please help me in understanding that information. As per your inputs, I have gone through the mappilary imagery of entire road stretch and identified the right maxspeed... | |
| 76087386 by shadty @ 2019-10-23 08:07 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! A restriction relation must have three roles (from (one way) to (one way), over (usually one node, but can also be different ways). Please check all not deleted relations. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,Thanks for the suggestion. I have removed the relations in the changeset 76137167.Thanks,shadty | |
| 75847175 by shadty @ 2019-10-17 14:44 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! A restriction relation must have three roles (from (one way) to (one way), over (usually one node, but can also be different ways). See booth relation. You have different "from" and "to" paths that do not have the "via" node. While trying to fix this, I found... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,Thanks for the suggestion and I have deleted the unnecessary relation in the changeset 75878637. Thanks,shadty | |
| 75159344 by shadty @ 2019-10-01 15:32 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! A restriction relation must have three (or more) members (from, to, via), see relation Hello! A restriction relation must have three (or more) members (from, to, via), see the eight reations from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10022547 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1002255... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | freebeer ♦1,598 | if i'm seeing right, you also deleted one of two amazon-added service drives in almost the same position. did you report it to them? i've been noting some workflow issues that they should improve...thanks | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,Apologies for the miss in relations. I've corrected the edit under changeset 75224418Regards,shadty | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | freebeer ♦1,598 | and now that i actually look at the changeset tags lacking the host= key, it's obvious you are from amazon.hard to keep up with these sorts of things... | |
| 74445783 by shadty @ 2019-09-13 16:15 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello, A restriction relation must have three members (from, to, via), see relation! see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10007554 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,Apologies for the miss in relations. I've corrected the edit under changeset 74536395Regards,shadty | |
| 74398716 by shadty @ 2019-09-12 15:21 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello, please check the relation https:/osm.org/relation/10007553\tand https:/osm.org/relation/10007554 . |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,Apologies for the miss in relations. I've corrected the edit under changeset 74445783Regards,shadty | |
| 74319807 by shadty @ 2019-09-10 16:14 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! Please check the restriction relations 10024338, 9439083, 9894465, 9894466, 9894467, 9894468, 9894470, 9894471, 9894472. They have all errors! |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,Apologies for the miss in relations. I've corrected the edit under changeset 74399396Regards,shadty | |
| 74362961 by shadty @ 2019-09-11 16:09 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello, please check the three restriction relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10007551, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10007552, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10007558. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi,Apologies for the miss in relations. I've corrected the edit under changeset 74398716Regards,shadty | |
| 73930379 by shadty @ 2019-08-30 15:58 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! Please be careful when editing the map data. You moved a node over 100 meters, so there were problems with the corresponding way. I completely reversed your change set. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi User_5359,Thanks for your update. It was an honest mistake. I was editing a turn restriction and by mistake I moved a node. I have added the turn restrictions again (Changeset # - 74077545). I will ensure not to commit such errors in the future. Please let me know if there are any other sugge... | |
| 72668476 by shadty @ 2019-07-26 03:57 ~ 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... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | gseethar ♦67 | Hi Sannkc,Thanks a lot for your suggestion. As mentioned in the other comment, 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 | |
| 63636348 by shadty @ 2018-10-18 08:36 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Glassman ♦5,828 | That street looks more like a service road than a residential road - and the county records agree. Also the existing way is named 169th St SW. I made the change. If you switch to JOSM there is a layer street layer available which is current as of December 2017. I made the changes. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | shadty | Hi Glassman, Thanks for making the changes and apologies for the delayed response. Yes its more like a service road. The width of the road supports too. I will follow your suggestions going forward | |
| 70177142 by shadty @ 2019-05-13 05:29 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mappingSP ♦1 | This is a wharf not a road. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | yaswap ♦68 | Hi mappingSP,Thanks for looking into our edits. The edit made here was based on the parking aisles painted and presence of vehicles. So our editor added service road. Please suggest any further modifications to this if any, so that we can add it from the next time.We are always happy to eng... | |
| 68049513 by shadty @ 2019-03-12 06:18 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | MikeN ♦357 | Hi, for all these turn restrictions - there are no signs that disallow the turns, and even the police frequently turn left through these intersections. If this was based on the double yellow lines - South Carolina does not disallow turns across double yellow - they only prohibit passing. A recen... |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | jguthula ♦65 | Hi MikeN,Thanks for looking into this edit. The editor added turn restrictions in this case because of double yellow lines. We didn't know this rule is not applicable in South Carolina. Will do more research on South Carolina traffic rules and update our workflows accordingly. Will update m... | |
| 67450126 by shadty @ 2019-02-22 02:23 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Baloo Uriza ♦2,404 | Missed the fixme tags. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67450126 |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | jguthula ♦65 | Hi Paul,Thanks for looking into this edit. By mistake we overlooked into the "Fix me" tag after adding names to these roads. Going forward we will be more careful on looking into the Fix me tag. Please do let us know if there are any other things that we need to be careful about. W... | |
| 63181322 by shadty @ 2018-10-04 05:01 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Elefant aus Wuppertal ♦737 | Hello shadty,in this changeset, you removed this way here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286721848 - may I ask you where did you get that from, that there would be no physical road? There have been construction workings but they are finished since begin of 2018, and why shouldn't there be... |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Elefant aus Wuppertal ♦737 | I do not know where you have taken the data from, so I and another user added the missing road part again. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 years ago | gseethar ♦67 | Hi Lukas,Thanks for your update.The edit done by Shadty was wrong and post your suggestion, one of our senior editor has made the change. Thanks for your update.We have advised the editor to maintain higher standard of edits and will be monitoring his edits closely.Please let us know if yo... | |
| 4 | ~ 7 years ago | freebeer ♦1,598 | Hallo Ganesh,Can i make a suggestion?With so many organised mappers editing around the world, it is difficult for me to tell at a glance who works where.This makes it difficult for me, where, for example, i have been troubleshooting Lyft edits with six changesets in one place from differen... | |
| 5 | ~ 7 years ago | freebeer ♦1,598 | A further hint, as i see this edit was made with iD as editor, and Lukas pointed to the above comment in another changeset:As you are editing here in germany, you may come to the conclusion as i did editing in Freiburg im Breisgau, that the Clarity images are both the easiest to work with and mo... | |
| 6 | ~ 7 years ago | gseethar ♦67 | Thanks a lot Freebeer.We would like to thank you for taking your time to give your valuable suggestions. Your suggestions on the various tools and their advantages and disadvantages was extremely helpful and we will look into it and see how it can improve our processes.Always happy to engage... | |
| 63295183 by shadty @ 2018-10-08 04:15 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | bogdan_andrei ♦5 | Hi. I saw that you changed the one way to bidirectional, but using imagery(Digital Globe Premium) it's not clear that this way is bidirectional. Did you used any source?Thank you! |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | shadty | Hi bogdanp_telenav,Thanks for the update. Missed disconnecting the segment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/232957559. The segment to the right should have been bidirectional not the entire way.Thank you for spending your valuable time to help us.Please let us know if you have an... | |
| 63181544 by shadty @ 2018-10-04 05:17 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | ToniE ♦1,263 | Hello shadty,from the mappilary photoshttps://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=48.081207228254584&lng=11.871697511379011&z=16.71749584191629&pKey=gUKCBUQ2tRz2DBTho6fHuQ&focus=photoI can see that there are no turning restrictiosn but highwayhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/812508... |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | gseethar ♦67 | Hi Toni,Thank you for spending your valuable time to help us. As the mapillary image is available only for one end of the street and since it shows "DO NOT ENTER" board and not "ONE WAY" the editor had made the turn restriction instead of changing the directionality of the ro... |