Hi Skyper,
The editor refrained from adding the U-turn restrictions in the edit as we were unable to find sign boards indicating U-turn restrictions at the nodes (node/10828760928 and node/6967044714).
We performed the deep dive as per your recommendations to understand and add the forward/backward roles to be set on 'route=road' or PTv1 bus routes. To understand the procedure to be followed, we looked into the wiki article route=bus , but the contents are not very clear.
I'd like to know if we need to set forward/backward roles in such cases given that traffic does not flow in both directions if the roads are divided into dual carriageways and are marked with one-way directionality. We would appreciate if you could share your knowledge with us and we will incorporate it in our internal sop.
Regards,
Deepika

Hi Skyper,
We have performed the necessary deep dive and corrected the attributes in the changesets you have suggested. Below are the changeset links for your reference.
changeset/135758127
changeset/135757521
changeset/135751762
changeset/135745782
changeset/134424108
We have reverted few changesets using JOSM as we did not have information true to ground reality. We are working on preparing a detailed sop on usage of JOSM and train the team to make sure that attributes are rightly added/modified, until then we will keep the dual carriage way modifications on hold. Thank you for your guidance.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,
We have re-evaluated our SOP on directionality for segments based on fish bone parking and are currently working on documenting a full-fledged detailed sop on usage of JOSM for dual carriage way additions. Until then we will keep all the dual carriage way edits on hold.
I have made the necessary corrections for the errors listed by you in the changesets 135745782 and 135740097. We have fixed all other errors reported by you. We will train the editors and review on the complete process to ensure that the attributes are rightly mapped.
Regards,
Deepika

Hi Skyper,
The editor has utilized mapilllary overlay dated 2022 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4508465865834415&focus=photo&lat=51.437563317391&lng=6.7740967043478&z=17&x=0.5633523102543057&y=0.48268028197895874&zoom=1.8029606631930022 to define and conclude the directions for the segment way/146694380 as oneway=yes which latest that the date of the existing edits.
I have made the adjusted the tagging information for bicycles as oneway:bicycle=no based on karta view and mapillary. We will provide the editor with a strict feedback to mention the sources for every edit done. Thank you for your support.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hello Skyper,

We apologize for the incomplete edit. The editor here was primarily concerned with changing the dual carriageway and failed to examine the traffic signal.
In the change set #135751762 referring to open street camera, we have made the necessary adjustments.
As part of the JOSM sop, we plan to provide thorough guidance to our team to guarantee that non-existent features are not preserved while changing segments into dual carriage ways.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hello, Skyper.

We modified the road geometry of the segment way/19394810 and added a service road going to the entity way/1169187831 in the change set #135757521 .
However, the track road osm.org/edit?editor=id&way=19399361#map=20/35.66018/-85.16209 was not created since the paths were not clearly visible and the roads here way/19393527 are largely vegetated and do not serve a physical entity.
We will make sure to make the complete edits in a given change set and refrain from deleting any valid nodes or way ids. Thank you for your support.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,
The editor accidentally has added three identical U-turn restrictions and we are sorry for the duplicate relations added.
We have reverted the edits in the change set 135740711 and will make the necessary modifications once we fully understand the usage of JOSM tool to avoid any further misses on dual carriage way modifications.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,
I have adjusted the tagging information regarding the sidewalks present on each side of the roads in the changeset/135745782 referring the details on the wiki sidewalk=*.
We apologize that editor failed to adjust the attributes correctly in the first instance, feedback has been provided to ensure that the attributes are rightly tagged while making modifications on the existing segments.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,

We have currently reverted the edits made in the change set #135740390 as we do not have latest resource to confirm if the U-turns are allowed at the end of dual carriage ways (node/7383839966 and node/108069381)
Also, we will deep dive and formulate sop on addition of turn lanes and ensure to make dual carriage way modifications only using JOSM so that the existing attributes/relations are not tampered.
Regards,
Deepika

Hi Skyper,

We apologize for the incomplete edit made by the editor in this change set. We have currently reverted the edits made in the change set 135740097 and will ensure to make dual carriage way modifications only using JOSM so that the existing attributes/relations are not tampered.
Regards,
Deepika

Hi Skyper,
The direction oneway=yes in this changeset was removed as part of our second quality review, as discussed in changeset/129308457.
We reviewed the 1296 change sets tasks created between Decemeber-2022 to March 2023 edited in the Germany area and reversed 126 changesets based on your and other community users' recommendations. These adjustments have been implemented into our internal SOP guidelines to prevent adding of directions in the absence of concrete proof such as lane markings and sign boards.
Regards,
Deepika

Hello, Skyper.

Thank you for resolving the problem.
The editor tried to fix the directions, lane count, and relations, as indicated in the previous changeset. However, the traffic signal was not corrected. Please accept my apologies for missing out on the additional attributes. This is an honest error on the editor's part.

Furthermore, we will update our SOP regarding the edits to be performed at such complex intersections on a priority basis, which will assist the editor in identifying and correcting all potential errors.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,

Thank you for fixing the issue.
We mainly tried to fix the error focusing on directionality, relations and the lane count as the main mistake made by the pervious editor at this junction was corresponding to road directions and we did not want to make any further wrong additions.
We did the deep dive and are afraid that suggesting an editor to add multiple attributes in a particular edit may lead to confusion and incorrect additions at such complex intersections.
In order to avoid such errors flowing to OSM from our end we will revise our SOP and refrain from making any corrections on existing's segments in absence of incomplete information of ground reality.
Regards,
Deepika

Hi,
Unfortunately the edit was validated by the reviewer basis the outdated internal imagery caused due to a technical issue. We apologize for this miss.
However, as per the recommendations provided by you we have trained the editors and reviewers to ensure that such errors do not repeat in any of the future edits. Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,
Thank you for sharing your inputs on the right edit to be made at this intersection. As per the suggestions we have added the relations in accordance to direction of traffic and the lane count as per the markings seen in mapillary in the changeset/134772747.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi,
We sincerely apologize for not responding to your comments on this CS.
We have updated our internal wiki and withdrawn the instructions on erasing the service tags added on the existing segments regardless of the presence of building outlines or address points in accordance with your prior recommendations. Changes to service tags won't be made any more.
But in this instance, I can see that the building's outline (way/66240632) has an amenity=fuel attribute. As a result, we haven't reverted the specifics on the service road. If you would like us to reverse the edit, kindly let us know.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi,
The initial edits in the changeset were made by the editor using our internal imagery which reflected outdated due to technical issue.
The editor misunderstood the part of access = private correction as restricting the access on the way. I have made the necessary changes and retained the default tags applicable on a footway segment mentioned in the OSM wiki.
Please let me know if you would like us to make any further changes.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,
We will ensure that going forward for the future edit’s, editors look for additional proofs such as lane markings, sign boards to conclude the directions for any segment.
In this case the fish bone parking scales are very evident and clear enough using the latest aerial imageries based on which direction shave been added, please let me know if you would like me to revert the directions and I would make the changes from my end. Thank you for your guidance.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,
We have audited the changesets created by niskumal and yadavzhi, identified majority of the errors created by them and reverted their edits.
To identify the errors which could have flown into OSM basis we could retrain the team on the etiquettes to be followed while editing, we are conducting a second review of all the 1296 change sets created between Decemeber-2022 to till date by our experienced reviewers and fix errors.
We will update you once the audit is done (ETA: 4/4/23).
The status of the audit will be shared on the changeset/129308457 for your reference.
Regards,
Deepikja

Hi Skyper,
As per the recommendations provided by you on our previous changesets regarding the source used for the edits made. We have included the steps in our centralized sop for an editor about to guidelines to be followed for updating/modifying the sources which are unused while making an edit.
We assure you that we are revisiting all the tasks and correct the errors created in the changesets till march as promised earlier by 4/4/23. Through this audit we also aim to identify the incorrect sources updated by the editors and provide them with the feedback, retrain them, and make sure they are accountable for citing the correct sources in the comments for any edits they make to OpenStreetMap.
Regards,
Deepikja