| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 106693565 by tmmanish @ 2021-06-21 06:12 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | SafetyIng ♦355 | The way is rather a driveway |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | tmmanish | Hi,Thanks for looking into my edits. I have not added service=driveway, as the segment connects more than a single entity. I have made the changes as per your suggestion in the changeset (106825728).Regards,tmmanish | |
| 106706138 by tmmanish @ 2021-06-21 09:50 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | SafetyIng ♦355 | The way is rather a parking aisle |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | tmmanish | Hi, Thank you for the input. I have added the service as per the OSM resources and cross checking the same with the roads in the vicinity. It is good to see the community providing their inputs, I have now changed the tag to parking aisle as per your suggestion. Please find the changeset(10682548... | |
| 92042013 by tmmanish @ 2020-10-06 10:42 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | phodgkin ♦75 | I don't think access routes in Crook Hall and Gardens car park should be marked as private. The car park has continued to operate independently of Crook Hall (which is now closed). It is advertised as a (privately owned) car park that is available to the public:https://www.durham.gov.uk/artic... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | tmmanish | Hi, Thanks for the input. I have added access as private based on presence of gate. Based on your local knowledge we reverted private access in this changeset. Happy to learn from you. | |
| 90689757 by tmmanish @ 2020-09-10 09:05 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Frans S ♦10,637 | Hi, Thanks for mapping here.Difficult to identify, but there were quite a number of buildings, (round and rectangular) which you overlooked.Please zoom in rather far next timeBest regards |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | tmmanish | Thanks for checking into our edits. I will take this as a learning from the community and make sure to implement in my future edits. Happy to be a part of #hotosm-project-8863 #OSMKenya #lastmile | |
| 80990924 by tmmanish @ 2020-02-14 06:33 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | flohoff ♦2,466 | Moin,wie ist das denn beschildert das da ein access=private drauf gehört?Flo --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/80990924 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi,Thanks for looking into my edit. We gave this access= private, since the road is leading to the Preschool from the available resources. Please let me know in case of any modifications.Always happy to learn from the community.Thanks,tmmanish | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | flohoff ♦2,466 | Hi,typically we only map whats verifyable on the ground e.g. published by signs. And i was questioning whether there is a sign saying something about access=private.Just because it leads up to a kindergarten doesnt make it access=privateFlo | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | ravsjith ♦18 | Hi,Replying on Behalf of tmmanish. We completely align with your statement of making edits based on the ground reality. Previously, we received some suggestions from community to add private tag to the roads (like this scenario) based on the available resources, as they are not supposed to be used... | |
| 71350744 by tmmanish @ 2019-06-18 04:18 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,743 | Hello,Is the "ford" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127567056/history a mistake? I think that the fixme can be removed (because you've mapped the rest of the track) as well.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi Andy,Thanks for looking into my edit.The ford tag already exists for which i have added the access tag of MV=yes for the track road. Reverted the edits as per the community request. Didn't edit the ford part has there are no proper evidence. Please let me know if any further changes are ... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,743 | Thanks. I've removed the fixme (because the reset of the track is now mapped) and removed the ford tag (which it looks like it got added by mistake). I've also changed the service road to a track since that's what it looked most like when I was last there - but that was 8 years ago,... | |
| 73616935 by tmmanish @ 2019-08-22 10:42 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | ndm ♦889 | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxar ... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 73970188 by tmmanish @ 2019-09-01 11:01 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,548 | Hello! Please be careful when editing the map data. You moved a node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5856467766/history) over 100 meters, so there were problems with the corresponding way. I move the node back to the original position. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi, Thank you for looking into my edit. This was an honest mistake and I will not repeat it in future. I understand the consequences and would be more careful going forward. Let me know in case you have any more suggestions! Regards,tmmanish | |
| 73618115 by tmmanish @ 2019-08-22 11:05 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | ndm ♦889 | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxa... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 72135866 by tmmanish @ 2019-07-11 13:22 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | aixbrick ♦904 | Hi,please see this comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72116545.Regards |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Nakaner-repair ♦8,429 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 72141179 where the changeset comment is: Revert addition of highways in a coal mine. They have been removed. Please turn on your brain before editing! Thank you. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi Nakaner-repair,Thanks for your comments. From Satellite imagery we identified it to be a missing road so added the service road over here. However, from the community's local knowledge, I have understood that it is a mining area. Thanks for reverting the edit. Happy to learn from the loc... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Nakaner ♦3,208 | Dear tmmanish, dear supervisor of tmmanish,thank you for your quick response.It does not require local knowledge to see that adding roads in this area is stupid (sorry, but there is no other term being more precise). If the OSM data differs a lot from satellite imagery, all alarm bells shoul... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | jguthula ♦65 | Hi Nakaner,Totally inclined with your suggestions and we are considering them as the valuable inputs to improve our editing process. Please do consider these errors as the new mapper errors as this is the first time the edits were made in Germany. From our past experience in the US we identified... | |
| 71281305 by tmmanish @ 2019-06-15 14:33 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,743 | Hello tmmanish,The service road at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/697340994 does not actually exist and has not done so for some time. What source did you use when adding it? Was it really a GPS trace from an Amazon delivery?The area's being redeveloped - the result will I suspect incl... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi Andy,Thanks for the response. This edit was made 20 days back when the update was not given to us on not adding motor_vehicle tag. Also the team is working on reverting back all the data which we added previously. Hoping to complete it by end of next week.. In this particular case, yes our de... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,743 | The building there was most recently used (about 10 years ago?) as changing rooms to the cricket pitch. I added that building to OSM in 2013 (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241047440/history for details) and it was boarded up then. > In this particular case, yes our delivery agent h... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi Andy,Reverting the "motor_vehicle=yes” attribute and deleted service road as per the request. Thanks for pointing out the error.Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71941330Regards,tmmanish | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,743 | Thanks. Next time I'm walking past the old gate I'll try and update it with what the current situation is (it's very different to the imagery; not sure if the old Miners Welfare building is still there). | |
| 70478019 by tmmanish @ 2019-05-21 13:04 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | whb ♦652 | Hello tmmanish,what is the source of this changeset? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi ,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. Thanks for changing it back. Going forward We will add these tags only if there is a definite proof.Please let us ... | |
| 70478380 by tmmanish @ 2019-05-21 13:15 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | whb ♦652 | Hello tmmanish,what is the source of this changeset?Mapillary shows, that the "Leimer Weg" is not allowed for all motor vehicles:https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=caKV7ga2cEdWZ9OD05b4ig |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi ,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. Thanks for changing it back. Going forward We will add these tags only if there is a definite proof.Please let us... | |
| 71502012 by tmmanish @ 2019-06-22 05:39 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,743 | Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288175718Hello,What is the evidence that this track should have an access tag "motor_vehicle=yes"? It's signed as a public footpath to the east, and just looks like a private road to me, for use by people accessing the farm at the end.Best... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | tmmanish | Hi Andy,Thanks for looking into the edit. The access tags were added based on the possibility of our delivery partners to travel through this road. But as you suggested, reverting back my changes on access tags and leaving the newly added roads as it is. Do let me know if those roads are suppo... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,743 | Hello,Thanks for that.Best Regards,Andy |