Hello Bienson,

Thank you for reviewing the changeset and pointing out the issue. After taking into consideration the feedback from our drivers and cross-referencing it with Mapiliary streetview and Bing Maps Aerial imagery, I made the decision to restrict the left turn. However, in light of your suggestion, I have promptly reverted my edits in changeset (139392785). Going forward, I'll be even more cautious and thorough, making sure to utilize all available resources before making any further edits.

Thank you once again for your guidance.

Best regards,
aepunavy

Hello trigpoint,

Thank you for reviewing the edits and making the necessary corrections. We apologize for adding incorrect turn restrictions. Going forward, we are committed to exercising extra caution when adding turn restrictions to prevent similar errors from occurring again.

Thank you again for your time and assistance.

Regards,
aepunavy

Hi,

Thanks for reporting this to me. My sincere apologies for the error made. As rightly pointed, I have used the outdated imagery to make this edit and I will take this as a learning and make sure that this would not repeat again. Thanks for making the necessary changes.

Best Regards,
aepunavy.

Hi,
Thanks for flagging this point with me. I have made this as a path based on latest aerial imagery i.e Bing, in which the path seems to be unpaved with grassy patches. As there is no street view to check, I have modified based on available aerial imagery. Kindly let us know if this is right so that I can make the necessary changes.
Regards,
aepunavy

Hi rempshaener,
Thank you for reviewing my changeset and making the necessary corrections. I have added the lift gates based on streetview. Didn't check railway crossing attributes. I will keep this in mind for my future edits. Thanks once again, I'm looking forward to learn more from you.
Regards,
aepunavy.

Hello GinaroZ,
Apologies for the genuine miss from my end. I have missed checking the note and added the directions. Thanks for correcting my edit.
Regards, 
aepunavy

Hi ndm,
Apologies for the misinterpretations and making the geometry misalignment. Thanks for checking into our edits and making the necessary corrections. Always happy to learn from the community.

Regards,
aepunavy

Hi naveenpf,
Thanks for the response. we are delighted to be a part of #hotosm-project and looking for more opportunities to work with you soon.

Regards,
Navya

Hi rempshaener,
Thanks for your time for checking into our edits. I have made the edits based on the driver feedback and available resources. It is really helpful that the local community is improvising our edits. I will take this inputs from the community and pass the same to my colleagues as well. always happy to learn from the community.
Regards,
aepunavy

Hi ndm,
Thanks for the reply. As mentioned in the wiki "" highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately. The path may have any type of surface.

This includes walking and hiking trails, bike trails and paths, horse and stock trails, mountain bike trails as well as combinations of the above.""(highway=path), we are adding path in case of ambiguous situations. Do you suggest to add a note in all such scenario or go with the wiki adding path alone.

Regards,
aepunavy

Hi ndm,
Thanks for checking into our edits. This edit was made partially based on the Driver feedback and available resources. We are not sure of creating any cycle/ foot path as there is no ground resources validating such edits from our end. It can be helpful if the local knowledge can improve our edits. Please let me know incase of any necessary changes.

Regards,
aepunavy

Hi Carto'Cite,

Thank you for looking into my edit. This is an honest mistake. I will take this as a leaning for my future edits and will be more careful while adding data in OSM. Let me know in case you have any other suggestion. Will be happy to learn from the local community.

Best Regards
aepunavy

Hi tux67,

Thank you for looking into my edit. I had made this edit based on the GPS traces of our driver partner. I could not find any evidence of this road being private as it lacked street imagery. I understand your concern and I am completely aligned with your view on the problem associated with joining these 2 major roads via a service road. Let me know in case I should change the access restriction. I am inclined towards adding meaningful data towards OSM and would be happy to learn from the community.

Regards
aepunavy

Hi Andy,

Thanks for looking into my edit. As suggested by the community, we ran the overpass query and modified the motor_vehicle=yes tag to unspecified. Please let me now in-case it is still left somewhere.
Apologies for a delayed response.

Regards
aepunavy

Hi Andy,

The motor_vehicle tag was added based on our delivery partner GPS traces which is verified with the vehicles present in the satellite imagery. Based on these sources the motor_vehicle = yes tag was added to these roads. As per community feedback on not to add "motor_vehicle=yes" tag until complete evidence is available, reverting the access tag changes.
Please let me know if there are any other suggestions

changeset# 71804340
Regards,
aepunavy