Copyright © Pascal Neis | Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors | ResultMaps | Latest OSM discussions | Autoreload 5:00 min | Page limited to max. 250 changesets
16 Changesets created by sskalyan have been discussed with 12 replies of this OpenStreetMap Contributor
Participated changeset discussions | More details | Discussions (Include blocked users) | Discussions without answer | Discussions without own answer | RSS feed
Changeset # ⏱️ Last updated Contributor Comment
70870663
by sskalyan
@ 2019-06-03 03:46
~ 6 years ago		1 ~ 1 year agorskedgell
♦1,818		 That would imply 24/7 access for all motor vehicles without exception, which isn't the case. The signage isn't great, as it's mostly via banned turn signs at junctions.
70914449
by sskalyan
@ 2019-06-04 08:57
~ 6 years ago		1 ~ 4 years agoskquinn
♦812		 Please be careful not to accidentally connect bridges or tunnels to paths/roads/footways/etc on other levels. This causes incorrect routing as well as (justifiably) tripping validator warnings.
2 ~ 4 years agosskalyan Hi Skquinn,

Thanks for reverting my accidental changes. Apologies for not paying enough attention while connecting segments.

Thanks,
Kalyan
87822379
by sskalyan
@ 2020-07-10 14:36
~ 5 years ago		1 ~ 5 years agod3d9
♦49		 thanks
81002259
by sskalyan
@ 2020-02-14 10:15
~ 6 years ago		1 ~ 6 years agorskedgell
♦1,818		 If this is something like two sections of road separated by bollards or some other vehicle barrier, perhaps highway=cycleway or highway=footway with a node for any barrier?
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi,

Thanks for your inputs. I have modified road class to footpath. I'm not sure of barrier type existing at this place, since I have made edit based on internal Driver feedback and OS Open data street view. Is it okay if I add a generic "barrier=yes"? so that it can be later tagge...
3 ~ 6 years agorskedgell
♦1,818		 Thanks.

Perhaps if you put barrier=yes + foot=yes for now and added a separate note asking a local mapper to check the barrier type and allowed access ?
4 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi,

I have added barrier and note accordingly.
Note ID: 2092613. Thanks again for reviewing my edit and for your valuable inputs.

Regards,
Kalyan
76808550
by sskalyan
@ 2019-11-08 12:25
~ 6 years ago		1 ~ 6 years agoGinaroZ
♦1,307		 Hi, I have reverted this change - if you look at the junction with Oswald Street you'll see this road is only two way for cycles and PSV.
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi Ginaro,

Apologies for my mistake, I should have checked at both ends of the segment. Thanks for the revert.

Regards,
Kalyan.
74290816
by sskalyan
@ 2019-09-10 06:29
~ 6 years ago		1 ~ 6 years agoNotJim99
♦5		 It's not that they were demolished. They were never built in the first place due to the housing crash in '08.
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi NotJim,

Thanks for the info. I misjudged the scenario from the aerial images.

Regards,
Kalyan.
72172475
by sskalyan
@ 2019-07-12 10:29
~ 6 years ago		1 ~ 6 years agotux67
♦2,028		 Hi sskalyan, it would be a good habit to also comment in the original changeset triggering the change, so the the requestor (in this case me) gets notified.

BR
tux67
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/72172475
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi tux67,

Thanks for looking into my edit, going forward we will follow the same practice. Apologies for inconvenience.

Regards,
Kalyan.
71094140
by sskalyan
@ 2019-06-10 09:14
~ 6 years ago		1 ~ 6 years agoSomeoneElse
♦13,743		 Hello,
What was the source of the access tag change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/620348177/history ?
Best Regards,
Andy
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi Andy,


Thanks for your suggestion. As per you request I am reverting back my edits made on access tags. Do let me know if you have any further questions.

Changeset #72039782
Regards,
Kalyan.
3 ~ 6 years agoSomeoneElse
♦13,743		 Hello,
Thanks for tha.
Best Regards,
Andy
4 ~ 6 years agoSomeoneElse
♦13,743		 (sorry for bad typing - "thanks for that", obviously!)
61074110
by sskalyan
@ 2018-07-26 04:18
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agoFraserKp
♦18		 Why? Has the car park been demolished? Deleting it because it was drawn in 2007 doesn't sound like a good reason...
2 ~ 7 years agovssms
♦12		 Hi FraserKp,

Thanks for bringing this up. We've corrected the data according to the latest imagery.
3 ~ 7 years agoChris Fleming
♦382		 Except the latest imagery isn't up to date, I mapped this service lane from a GPs trace that I collected, when the new supermarket was built.
4 ~ 7 years agoChris Fleming
♦382		 vssms - I will revert this change. Please don't destroy other peoples work, based on out of date imagery.
5 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi Chris Fleming,

Thanks for looking into my edit, I have modified the direction at entry/exit based on digiglobe imagery.
Apologies for delay in response.

Thanks,
Kalyan.

62057028
by sskalyan
@ 2018-08-28 03:54
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agotrigpoint
♦2,659		 Are you sure this isn't a track?

Cheers Phil
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi trigpoint,

Thanks for looking into the edit, I have modified road classification according to your suggestion.
Apologies for delay in response.

Thanks,
Kalyan.
61286689
by sskalyan
@ 2018-08-02 07:17
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agoChris Fleming
♦382		 exactly what are these relations such as - Relation: 109742 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/109742 meant to be?
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi Chris Fleming,

Thanks for looking into the edit. The turn restriction that was added here was an IMPLICIT restriction. But at that time we are not aware of adding implicit=yes in the tags. The mentioned relation was reverted by another user. Thanks for reviewing the edit.
Apologies for delay ...
62033149
by sskalyan
@ 2018-08-27 09:09
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agondrw6
♦80		 Is this really a service road? There are some properties visible on aerials. Perhaps setting a width tag would be a better choice.
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi ndw6,

Our team only make edits based on aerial imagery and street side, we don't know the exact width of the road. If you have the exact knowledge regarding this road, please add the data.
Apologies for the delay in response.

Thanks,
Kalyan.
63598036
by sskalyan
@ 2018-10-17 05:19
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agoGinaroZ
♦1,307		 Hi, saw your edit of
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635156291 - I think the best thing to do when you have a short section where no motor vehicles are allowed is to mark as footway, which I've done.
2 ~ 6 years agosskalyan Hi GinaroZ,

Thanks for the update, we are now currently editing according to your suggestion.
Apologies for the delay in response.

Regards,
Kalyan.
65031668
by sskalyan
@ 2018-11-30 04:22
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agoDaveF
♦1,626		 You could have used the 'straight ahead only' rule. 4 rels instead of 8.
2 ~ 7 years agogseethar
♦67		 Hi DaveF,

Yes, though it makes sense to give a "Straight Ahead only" than restrictions for both left and right, We will be able to give restrictions only based on the signs available (Which restricts left and right).

Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. ...
63999596
by sskalyan
@ 2018-10-30 05:34
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agoYour Village Maps
♦91		 Please note that I-70 is under RE-construction between I-25 and Chambers Road in Denver and Aurora, CO. The on-ramp to westbound I-70 from York Street was recently closed and demolished - permanently. Google "central 70 denver" and visit cdot website.
2 ~ 7 years agogseethar
♦67		 Thanks for helping us understand the geography and the latest update.
Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them.

Regards,
Ganesh
3 ~ 7 years agoYour Village Maps
♦91		 Here is the CDOT project website: https://codot.gov/projects/i70east

I live in Denver and so I have taken on updating OSM as changes occur during the construction. Hopefully there won't be too many instances of people undoing my work.
4 ~ 7 years agogseethar
♦67		 Definitely. Since the editor had observed the road missing and visible in the satellite imageries, the edit was made. We value members of the OSM community and trust their local knowledge.
We are always happy to engage and get feedback from local OSM community.
Thanks a lot for the update.

Rega...
63524103
by sskalyan
@ 2018-10-15 02:42
~ 7 years ago		1 ~ 7 years agoNakaner
♦3,208		 Why did you add motor_vehicle=no to the ways you have created?

Why did you split up the way?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/63524103
2 ~ 7 years agojguthula
♦65		 Hi Nakaner,

Thanks for the reaching out. There was a bollard blocking the entry of vehicles at this location so added `motor_vehicle=no` to improve the user safety.

Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions in such cases. We are always happy to engage with local OSM com...
3 ~ 7 years agoNakaner
♦3,208		 Hi Jothirnadh,

please don't add short ways to replicate the values of a barrier. Your application has to handle barriers properly.

In addition motor_vehicle=no is wrong if no traffic signs forbids that. There are motor vehicles which could pass the bollard. You harm their routing.

I re...
4 ~ 7 years agojguthula
♦65		 Hi Michael,

Thanks for your response. I agree with your point on adding short ways to replicate the values of a barrier. I have requested my team to avoid doing so going forward. Our team has taken this at high priority and reviewed our older edits and corrected 14 cases in Germany. Do let us kno...