| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 98373507 by spavulur @ 2021-01-29 15:21 | 1 | 2021-01-29 17:26 | Rovastar ♦38 | This doesn't look like a residential road. There appears no way for a car to drive to connect the two. I'm changing it to a footpath to join these.If you know better let me know |
| 2 | 2021-02-02 13:13 | spavulur | Hi Rovastar, Thanks for looking into my edit. I have added road based on Esri world imagery (Vintage 2018) as Bing aerial imagery has no vintage. Always happy to learn from community. Regards,spavulur | |
| 83259490 by spavulur @ 2020-04-08 14:30 | 1 | 2020-04-15 18:00 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi, in this change you have marked ways 279334462 and 789328118 as private, but they appear to have the Greenwich Meridian Trail running along them. Should the access be vehicle=private rather than access=private? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-04-16 11:31 | spavulur | thanks for the response on our edits. This edit is partially based on the driver feedback and available resources.i have modified the access tag based on the barrier present, it will be helpful if the ground knowledge can improve our edits. Please find the changeset(83645735) for the suggested modif... | |
| 82967177 by spavulur @ 2020-04-02 09:04 | 1 | 2020-04-07 09:46 | Chris Fleming ♦376 | Hi, it looks to me like the road going all the way around isn't complete, in that it looks to me like there is something across the road on the bottom right? |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 07:12 | spavulur | thanks for checking into our edits.the road created over there is little ambiguous as the imagery is covered by vegetation. Please find the changeset(83235113) for the suggested modifications. Always happy to learn from the community | |
| 82814356 by spavulur @ 2020-03-30 09:17 | 1 | 2020-04-03 13:10 | Chris Fleming ♦376 | This looks fine, apart from the access around the sheds, do you have any evidence that there is access along the bottom of the shed? |
| 2 | 2020-04-03 13:59 | spavulur | Thanks for checking into our edits. this edit was made partially based on the Driver feedback and available resources. We are not sure of adding any access tags without proper evidence. Please go ahead make the required changes, It can be helpful if the local knowledge can improve our edits. always ... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-03 14:06 | Chris Fleming ♦376 | Thanks overall this looks great, especially the long driveway. - it's only this part of the road that I'm concerned about: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785815482 - (and in particular the way it goes around the shed)And in Scotland we have general right to roam so not adding access... | |
| 76049728 by spavulur @ 2019-10-22 12:55 | 1 | 2019-10-22 19:03 | user_5359 ♦20,423 | Hello! Please check the access value of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/737570840 |
| 2 | 2019-10-23 08:57 | spavulur | Hi user_5359,Thanks for looking into my edit.It was an honest mistake.Made the necessary changes refer change set (76089963). Please let me know in case of any further changes are to be made,Always happy to learn from community.Regards,spavulur. | |
| 71315331 by spavulur @ 2019-06-17 04:30 | 1 | 2019-07-05 15:26 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | Hello,It looks like the change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/592351680/history has the same problem previously discussed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71209109 . Can you have a look at where you've added motor_vehicle=yes elsewhere without evidence and remove it?Best Re... |
| 2 | 2019-09-10 07:44 | Himanshu Galyan ♦6 | Hi Andy,Thanks for looking into this. 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 for usApologies for a delayed response.(Posting on the behalf of spavulur)Best Regardsg... | |
| 3 | 2019-09-29 18:31 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | (sorry for the belated reply) thanks for sorting this out. | |
| 67912901 by spavulur @ 2019-03-08 08:04 | 1 | 2019-04-07 07:01 | BCNorwich ♦5,009 | Hi, your new Way: 675362322, is a duplication of an existing Way: Palmerston Road (164857317). The existing way holds much more detail. A duplication of highways disrupts routing. Thus I have removed the new way. If a way needs amending it is OSM practice to keep and amend the existing way, this kee... |
| 2 | 2019-07-03 12:44 | spavulur | Hi,Thanks for the update and we apologize for the delayed response. There might be some issue while creating the road segments. Hence there was a duplication of the segments. Thanks for reverting the changes. Going forward we will follow the same. Regards,spavulur | |
| 71749549 by spavulur @ 2019-06-30 07:06 | 1 | 2019-06-30 08:32 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | Thanks - with a bit of luck I'll get a chance to see how far the public footpath goes within the next month or so.Regards,Andy |
| 71209109 by spavulur @ 2019-06-13 08:54 | 1 | 2019-06-28 12:48 | SomeoneElse ♦13,568 | Hello,Can you explain why you've added motor_vehicle=yes to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168699662 ? It didn't look like that tag was valid based on when I was last there. Also you've added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696854736 as service road, which it isn't reall... |
| 2 | 2019-06-30 07:10 | spavulur | Hi Andy,Thanks for looking into this edit. We got a missing road case as per our driver GPS trace over here. The previous edit was made by you 6 years ago which I though might have changed by now as per satellite imagery visuals. Also I identified couple of parked vehicles with associated building... |