| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4779440 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Johannes13256 ♦50 | No playground via StreetComplete 61.1 Attached photo(s): https://streetcomplete.app/p/280881.jpg https://streetcomplete.app/p/280882.jpg |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Apirnus ♦2,394 | Image gives back error: Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server. Apache Server at streetcomplete.app Port 443 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | ||
| 4779303 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Buzhbaa ♦19 | Unable to answer "What’s the surface here?" – Cycle Path – https://osm.org/way/545325121 via StreetComplete 61.0: Construction Attached photo(s): https://streetcomplete.app/p/280855.jpg |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | ||
| 4779293 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Buzhbaa ♦19 | Unable to answer "What’s the surface here?" – Informal Path – https://osm.org/way/1288153308 via StreetComplete 61.0: Construction Attached photo(s): https://streetcomplete.app/p/280851.jpg |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | ||
| 5214248 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Not sure I've understood this genius solution for cyclists. The cycleway just... ends. Could be surveyed again just in case to confirm strangeness of this "solution". |
| 5096243 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Tiit K | Data error. This road is not a one-way street. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Thanks, fixed routing. Info for other mappers: the problem was not in the street being oneway, but two nodes near roundabout being really close and making a really sharp turn, which routers tend to avoid. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | ||
| 5094006 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Tiit K | Something is wrong in here. Not allow to drive straight to Orissaare. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Fixed. Incorrect turn restriction was placed, I assume it should have not allowed to make a sharp turn to oneway here. Turn restriction addition doesn't work for me in iD editor, could be added, ideally. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/31115938/ | |
| 5024953 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | Tiit K | Some problem here with road data. When you want travel from Pärnu to Lihula, then OpenStreetMap shows you can not use this part of the road with car. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Thanks, fixed. | |
| 5112644 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | There is a new bicycle-pedestrian path along Põllu |
| 3987357 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | Vadim678 ♦12 | "Villa Olbrei" OSM snapshot date: 2023-09-20T00:34:57Z POI has no name POI types: building #organicmaps ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Hi, do you want to just add house name or is there something in this house which should be mapped? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | fghj753 ♦1,252 | Seems to be somewhat notable architectural sight (website https://villaolbrei.ee/) and it's HQ of a IT company SpinTek | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Usually we don't add business registered at homes. Unless it's a place where you can go to as a client or an actual office, I'd only add a name tag. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | fghj753 ♦1,252 | That's what HQ should mean. Looking images at https://spin.ee/firmast/ and aerial imagery it's quite clear it's an old villa reconstructed into modern office building. Unsure about visiting as random person off street, but there's parking with 12 spaces visible on Maaamet's imagery. | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Seems that the office can be married then. | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | fghj753 ♦1,252 | Added | |
| 3923044 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | 777caliban ♦280 | Promenade missing via StreetComplete 54.0 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/179072.jpg https://westnordost.de/p/179073.jpg |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Promenade is added, but maybe could use more connections for routing. Also, it should be checked if cycleway should have foot=designated. In practice, people walk there and noone cares. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | PeachyOne ♦3,812 | foot traffic being tolerated is not foot=designated, but foot=yes at best. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | NoNameX ♦238 | I cannot see any mistake here. The promendade ans also the cycleway is OK. I close this note. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | The mistake is cycleway having foot=designated. It shouldn't. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | NoNameX ♦238 | I love it. You are convinced it should be foot=yes and you have an OSM account. So the question is, why do you not change the item and close the note ? Are you waiting for an idiot who is doing the work for you ? When I review the attached pictures, for me foot=designated is correct. In the end, for the user and for the routing there is no difference between foot or designated. But it is not my intention to discuss these kind of topics. As you know, there are only about 30 users per day adding data to OSM in greece. I do not think you will find anybody who is doing the work for you. I remember you in one year, if the note is still open. Best Regards NoNameX | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | I am not a local and not 100% sure about local laws. Besides, you don't agree and at the same time ask me to change it? You can cite relevant local traffic law chapter, if you think that foot traffic is designated on cycleways. Your behavior though is not acceptable by OSM community standards. Please review and reflect on your message. | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | PeachyOne ♦3,812 | after looking at the pictures more closely, there is a sidewalk right next to the cycleway on the same level. Therefore the two usages are segregated legally, and should be mapped as such. | |
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | ||
| 11 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Please check the whole length. Unless something changed, the strip with paving stones between cycleway and carriageway is not really suitable for walking, as it's narrow and full of lamp posts. The separate footpath is already mapped separately. Also, the separate path could use more connections for routing. | |
| 12 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | PeachyOne ♦3,812 | before Αγνώστου Στρατιώτη, it seems wide enough for one able bodied person. After, the dirt promenade path merges with the cycleway, separated by the tree row, becomes paved and is clearly meant to be used by pedestrians. Just because people do something ill advised like walking in the path of cyclists, doesn't mean we should reccomend it in OSM routing! I have made some routing adjustments, see if they are satisfactory (I am not local to this town, all of this is from seeing it on Mapillary 360 imagery). | |
| 13 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | 777caliban ♦280 | ||
| 3463379 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | Apirnus ♦2,394 | Since this is offically bus parking lot, should it be prehaps amenity=bus_station? https://roheportaal.delfi.ee/artikkel/96477509/kohalike-ja-ekspertide-poolt-maha-laidetud-bussiparkla-tallinna-kesklinnas-saab-peagi-valmis |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | No, bus station is station for passengers, like Tallinna bussijaam. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | Apirnus ♦2,394 | What about industrial=bus_depot, landuse=industrial? | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | I think bus depot should be a place where the buses are serviced. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/788474458 | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | Apirnus ♦2,394 | Would then plain surface parking lot with access tag for permit only suffice here or its so different thing that we just dont have some kind of appropriate tag combination? | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | I think private parking is correct in this case | |
| 7 | ~ 2 years ago | closed | Apirnus ♦2,394 | Great, then we can close this note since this parking lot already has by permit only access tag. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | reopened | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | ||
| 9 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 | Permit access is supposed to be something you can easily aquire. access should be private. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | Apirnus ♦2,394 | There are signs stateing that written permit is required to park here and only public transport is allowed to enter. Private it is then and case closed I guess. | |
| 11 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | fghj753 ♦1,252 | The signage says other way around to what Apirnus described (you need permit to enter to lot, but only public transport can park, regardless of having permit or not), but anyways updated parking area to access=private, while parking aisles to access=permit. Also removed duplicate parking of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/906706861 keeping just https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/76998604 Since qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq reopened note, leaving closing to you. | |
| 12 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ♦855 |