Hi jonnymccullagh,

On this way (way/83069499)I noticed you added a tag access=private.

On imagery (Bing) this way looks like a service/unclassified road.

Along this road is a graveyard and several houses, which is the access road to the main street.

Are you sure that the classification should be the track?

Can I ask you to check this way?

Thanks Milan (borovac)

Hi

This way (way/959785568) looks like a yard, not an alley.

Can you check again if this road should be an alley or a footway?

All the best Milan (borovac)

Hi nick26841,

I see that you created this way as a track (way/863375949) and also created this way as a service (way/863375949), so you left this house without access to the main road.

In the same changeset, you also change the classification of these roads (way/849748773; way/849748774) from service to track and leave a couple of ways without connectivity.

Can I ask you to check again if this road should be a track or because of the connection it should remain a service road?

All the best Milan (borovac)

Hi ramthelinefeed,

I noticed that you changed the classification of the road from service to track. As a result, this house is now without access to the main road (way/1146085769). Could you please reevaluate whether this road should indeed be classified as a track, or if its connection warrants it remaining a service road? Additionally, I observed that you added a private tag to this track. Would you mind reviewing this as well? Considering its connectivity, it might still be more appropriate to classify it as a service road (way/335799746).

Thank you in advance Milan (borovac)

Hello again,
I fixed the change that I accidentally made incorrectly.
Thank you one again.
All best Milan

Sure, here is the translation of the text from Serbian to English:

Hi Tricky
I probably accidentally replaced this ISO: ISO3166-2 with the letter 'H' when I was selecting the history.
Thanks, I will correct it now.

All best Milan (borovac)

I would ask you again to stop adding these tags without a community agreement.
If you do not contact the community and do not agree with it, I will be forced to revert all the changes.

Hi kentakta,

The same applies to Greece. To be able to add that tag, you need to communicate with the community. Otherwise, DGW will be informed about these changes.

All best borovac

Hi kentakta,

The same applies to Greece. To be able to add that tag, you need to communicate with the community. Otherwise, DGW will be informed about these changes.

All best borovac

Hi kentact,

Could you please explain why you use the tag “destination:lang:sr” and other variants? When we look at the wiki page for that tag, we see that it is abandoned and not in use (see here).

I’m curious if you contacted the community before adding those characters en masse, as I don’t see any discussion about it anywhere. The official forum for OpenStreetMap in Serbia can be found here.

I kindly request that you start a topic related to this issue on the official channel. Until a consensus is reached regarding adding the “destination:lang:*” tag, I recommend temporarily stopping further additions. Otherwise, I will write a complaint to DWG regarding this matter.

These decisions should be made collectively within the community, rather than by an individual setting rules unilaterally.

I saw that you added to 2257 relations. I would like to ask you once again to stop adding until you have agreed and received approval from the OSM Serbia community.

All best borovac

Hi kentact,

Could you please explain why you use the tag “destination:lang:sr” and other variants? When we look at the wiki page for that tag, we see that it is abandoned and not in use (see here).

I’m curious if you contacted the community before adding those characters en masse, as I don’t see any discussion about it anywhere. The official forum for OpenStreetMap in Serbia can be found here.

I kindly request that you start a topic related to this issue on the official channel. Until a consensus is reached regarding adding the “destination:lang:*” tag, I recommend temporarily stopping further additions. Otherwise, I will write a complaint to DWG regarding this matter.

These decisions should be made collectively within the community, rather than by an individual setting rules unilaterally.

I saw that you added to 2257 relations. I would like to ask you once again to stop adding until you have agreed and received approval from the OSM Serbia community.

All best borovac

Hi kentact,

Could you please explain why you use the tag “destination:lang:sr” and other variants? When we look at the wiki page for that tag, we see that it is abandoned and not in use (see here).

I’m curious if you contacted the community before adding those characters en masse, as I don’t see any discussion about it anywhere. The official forum for OpenStreetMap in Serbia can be found here.

I kindly request that you start a topic related to this issue on the official channel. Until a consensus is reached regarding adding the “destination:lang:*” tag, I recommend temporarily stopping further additions. Otherwise, I will write a complaint to DWG regarding this matter.

These decisions should be made collectively within the community, rather than by an individual setting rules unilaterally.

I saw that you added to 2257 relations. I would like to ask you once again to stop adding until you have agreed and received approval from the OSM Serbia community.

All best borovac

Hi kentact,

Could you please explain why you use the tag “destination:lang:sr” and other variants? When we look at the wiki page for that tag, we see that it is abandoned and not in use (see here).

I’m curious if you contacted the community before adding those characters en masse, as I don’t see any discussion about it anywhere. The official forum for OpenStreetMap in Serbia can be found here.

I kindly request that you start a topic related to this issue on the official channel. Until a consensus is reached regarding adding the “destination:lang:*” tag, I recommend temporarily stopping further additions. Otherwise, I will write a complaint to DWG regarding this matter.

These decisions should be made collectively within the community, rather than by an individual setting rules unilaterally.

I saw that you added to 2257 relations. I would like to ask you once again to stop adding until you have agreed and received approval from the OSM Serbia community.

All best borovac

Hi kentact,

Could you please explain why you use the tag “destination:lang:sr” and other variants? When we look at the wiki page for that tag, we see that it is abandoned and not in use (see here).

I’m curious if you contacted the community before adding those characters en masse, as I don’t see any discussion about it anywhere. The official forum for OpenStreetMap in Serbia can be found here.

I kindly request that you start a topic related to this issue on the official channel. Until a consensus is reached regarding adding the “destination:lang:*” tag, I recommend temporarily stopping further additions. Otherwise, I will write a complaint to DWG regarding this matter.

These decisions should be made collectively within the community, rather than by an individual setting rules unilaterally.

I saw that you added to 2257 relations. I would like to ask you once again to stop adding until you have agreed and received approval from the OSM Serbia community.

All best borovac

@ika-chan sorry, I see now that you have already fixed the intersection.

@ika-chan! should I fix the geometry of the intersection according to the imagery? Or will the Greek community solve it?
We came across several such examples from this @Delda Evas ALL user where a regular T intersection is modeled like this.

Hello Delta Evas ALL,

Could you provide some more info regarding this junction? Looking at available sources this junction looks like a simple T restriction. What was the reason for remodeling? Were there any recent reconstructions going on there?

Here are the coordinates and link to the junction: 39.7985282, 21.1734184 osm.org/#map=19/39.79850/21.17338

All best Borovac

Cao Savo,

vidim da dosta stavljas living street gde ne bi trebalo da bude living street ovu ulicu si sa service prebacio u living_stret (highway=living_street) umesto u highway=presidential.
To dosta utice na routing, i living_street ne predstavlja ulicu gde ljudi zive vez ulicu izuzetno male brzine tu je maxspee=10 i da bi neka ulica bila living street mora da ima ovakav znak kao sto ima ova ulica (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=44.976427777778&lng=20.164836111111&z=17&pKey=842777696312414&focus=photo&x=0.5058731116105611&y=0.4625984624248233&zoom=0)
S postovanjem Borovac

Hvala, srecni praznici… 😄

OK, hvala…
Nista kada se importuju sve adrese u podunavlju napravicu tabelu sa onim sto je uneseno i sa RGZ podacima pa se dogovaramo dalje da se to prekontrolise.
Postoji mogucnos da su iz RGZ-a dodeli nove brojeve i da ljudi jednostavno nisu zameni brojeve, ali takodje postoji mogucnost da i RGZ ima pogresne podatke.