Hi ndm,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This is a pure mistake from the auditor. Since the other end of the road is covered with grass the auditor assumed the road to be passing via building. I communicated not to make any edit in OSM unless we have a valid source. We also went ahead and fixed this error (Changeset: 67548781).

Do let us know if you are coming across any of such errors.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi ndm,

Thanks for looking into this edit. The building in this case was added in 2015 where as Bing has 2017 imagery which shows the building is replaced with a parking lot. But I believe your local knowledge is more updated than any other data source which brings more value to the table.

Do let us know if you think Bing imagery date is wrong for this area. We are looking forward to get more inputs from the community and improve our process to reflect back good edits to OSM.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Paul,

Thanks for looking into this edit. By mistake we overlooked into the "Fix me" tag after adding names to these roads. Going forward we will be more careful on looking into the Fix me tag.

Please do let us know if there are any other things that we need to be careful about. We are looking forward to collaborate with the community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi ndm,

Thanks for looking into this edit and fixing it. Do let us know if any of such errors coming through our team. Will make sure to improve our training process to remove such errors in future. We are trying our best identify data errors and fix them as quickly as possible.

We are also looking forward to collaborate with the local community and learn from their experience.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Robert,

Thanks for looking into our edits. This is purely made by mistake and I have reverted the road name to normal.
Changeset: changeset/67432504

Please do let us know if there are any other issues we need to keep a track of. We are looking forward to coordinate more with the community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Paul,

Thanks for looking into this edit. We are coming across two different types of track roads where some roads are in good shape to route motor-vehicles and the other roads are not. To overcome this issue we looked into OSM wiki and identified it is better to add motor_vehicle=yes to certain track roads that cannot be modified as a service or residential roads.

Do let us know if this is causing any data problems. We will look into it and communicate it to our team.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Paul,

Thanks for looking into this edit and fixing it. Since there are couple of houses associated with this road we changed it into a residential road. But in the larger context I believe unclassified is more accurate. Going forward we will keep this in mind.

Let us know if there are any other issues that you want us to keep track in this region. We are actively trying to engage with community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks Éric, looking forward to work along with the French local community and improve OSM data to our best knowledge.

Happy mapping!

Jothirnadh

Hi Gileri,

Thanks for looking into our edits. We looked at the routing errors in this area and it looked like the roads were completely broken. We used BDOrtho IGN imagery to fix it. But from your explanation it looks like we made a wrong edit. If you have local knowledge of this area please go ahead and fix the issue or else I will revert the changes from our end.

Once again thanks for your suggestion. We are actively looking to engage with the community and learn from them. Please do let us know if there is anything else we need to keep track of before editing.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Cameron Ford,
Thanks for looking into this road and converting it from construction to a motorway. It looks like the road is missing a proper connection with appropriate highway at this location osm.org/edit?way=620480701#map=19/29.70049/-95.77733 . Since there is no recent satellite imagery to make this edit I am not touching it. If you have local knowledge please do fix it.

Happy mapping!

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Trigpoint,

Thanks for looking into our edits and providing your feedback. This is the first time we came across this signboard and due to lack of information our auditor made a mistake. From your inputs we did a deep dive and tried to fix the issue appropriately. We also made changes to our training docs to reflect the same from OSM wiki. You can find our changes in this changeset: changeset/66228850

If you find anything wrong in our changes please let us know your recommendations or suggestions. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for looking into this edit. From satellite imagery we clearly identified the first segment direction to be wrong so removed the oneway direction. We were not clear with the other segment direction so didn't touch it. If you have local knowledge please do fix the direction of this segment.

Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions to improve our edits. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi n76,
Thanks for looking into our edits and reaching out to us. This edit was made because there is a oneway road marking identified at the start of this road in Mapbox Satellite imagery. Based on that evidence we came to a conclusion that this road should be a oneway.

Hope this answers your doubt. If any further information is required please feel free to reach out to us. Also do let us know if there is anything that we can improve to add best quality data to OSM.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks for your inputs Syl, going forward we will be extra cautious of the construction areas.

Do let us know If there are any recommendations or suggestions. We will consider it as a top priority before making any edit.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi syl,

Yes we used BDOrtho IGN and Mapillary as a source to verify road connectivity for these edits. Is there any mistake me made in this case?

Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

yes Neil, we are improving OSM data to improve delivery programs of Amazon. You can find more information of our team from the following wiki: osm.wiki/Amazon_Logistics

Let us know if there any recommendations or suggestions that can improve our mapping process.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi NDM,

Again thanks for looking into our edits. I totally agree to your point on some of the roads being parking_aisles in this changeset. From our previous editing experience we noticed a bit of disconnect on judging a parking_aisel. Just to make sure wrong information is not added to OSM, we asked our editors not to map parking_aisel, but to add the primary tag i.e., `highway`=* if they are clear with it. Again the main intention for taking this decision is to make sure wrong data is not added to OSM by our team members.

Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirandh

Hi NDM,

Thanks for looking into our edits. Can I know what you meant by a loop in this case? Do you mean to split the road? From the Satellite imagery it looks like the complete segment belongs to one entity.

Do let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your response. I agree with your point on adding short ways to replicate the values of a barrier. I have requested my team to avoid doing so going forward. Our team has taken this at high priority and reviewed our older edits and corrected 14 cases in Germany. Do let us know if any other such issues are found in our edits on OSM so we take that as our top priority and fix it immediately.

We strongly believe in working with OSM community in improving the geo data rather than following something that is incorrect. I agree, our team had committed few errors in the past, but those were not intentional. Every time we notice an error from our end, we take it seriously and fix it and change our mapping workflows to reflect the same in future edits. We do follow 100% review system to make sure best data is added to OSM.

Do let us know of your review findings so that we can work towards fixing these issues rather than reverting all the changesets. Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions in such cases. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Nakaner,

Thanks for the reaching out. There was a bollard blocking the entry of vehicles at this location so added `motor_vehicle=no` to improve the user safety.

Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions in such cases. We are always happy to engage with local OSM community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh