Hi SomeoneElse,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This edit was saved in iD just before blocking the user, so it got uploaded automatically once his account was unblocked. That is why the editors previous changeset was not answered before this edit. I personally had responded in the editors previous changeset as well.

Coming to this actual changeset, the edit was made on the main track road where multiple houses were associated and our delivery agents were allowed to travel through these roads using motor_vehicles. But during this edit by mistake the editor edited the adjacent small track road and by the time the mistake was realised and tried to fix the changes his account got blocked.

We have considered this as a blunder and proper instructions were given to the editor for not repeating such errors in future. Please do let us know if there are any such mistakes from our end. We will consider them as serious issues and try to fix them as quick as possible and also work on improving our editing processes.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Yes SomeoneElse, exactly because of this reason we decided not to convert the track road to a service road and instead we decided to add motor_vehicle=yes for these track roads. Since there is no street level imagery assigned for this road, we didn't add any of the legal access tags. If we have sources proving the legal access restrictions of this road, we will add that information to the roads as well. Do let us know if you think this is wrong. Would like to understand more and learn from your inputs.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi SomeoneElse,

In Esri World Imagery Clarity Beta the parked vehicles were identified inside the building at the middle of the Farthing Drove and our delivery agent GPS traces also helped in deciding if motor_vehicles were allowed to this road or not.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi SomeoneElse,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This edit was made based on our delivery agent GPS traces. In general there are two types of track roads we come across everyday:
1. The track roads which cannot be used for motor vehicles transportation and
2. The roads that are actually track roads but motor vehicles can travel through these roads.

So when ever our delivery agent can travel through this road we add motor_vehicle =yes. We do add private information when there is a valid source to prove it as a private road or else we will not touch the road. This is to make sure wrong information is not pushed from our team end.

Hope this answers your question. We are always looking forward to engage with local community and learn more from them. Please do let us know if there are any further concerns from our editing process.

Happy mapping!

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Nmxosm,

Thanks for looking into our team edits and getting back with comments. The edit was made by a new editor who just started working in OSM and did it by mistake. I have reverted the bad changes (changeset/71637451). Will also keep a close track of such issues and try not to repeat it further.

Do let us know if there are any other suggestion you have to share on our editing process. We are actively looking forward to engage with local community and learn more from them

P.S: Since this is the same content sent via email, not going to respond over there.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Phil,

Thanks for looking into the edits. I fixed the edit and converted it into a service and driveway as per your comments. It's nothing like Amazon not following your suggestions. We are validating the OS OpenData for edge cases so that workflow will be more robust. This is to ensure only good information flow into OSM.

Here is one example where we are finding it difficult to come to a conclusion:

Location : osm.org/edit?changeset=70895603#map=19/52.70831/-2.50074

There is a difference in the road colour and we can identify this from OS opendata source this is a driveway.

Location: osm.org/edit?way=694540800#map=18/51.76245/0.06186

In this case there is no black mark in the OS opendata so its a service road

Location: osm.org/edit?way=694458204#map=19/51.41103/0.52687

In this case the OS open data stops closes the road after certain extent but the rest of the road looks to be just a continuation and not a driveway.

Please do let us know if you have any inputs to such cases. As I said we are just taking time to evaluate the OSM opendata but not ignoring your inputs. As a community driven project we at Amazon are trying our best to add top quality data to OSM.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Robert,

Sorry for failing to respond to this comment previously. I went ahead and added back the features that got deleted. Since the edits were made long back I failed to back track the exact reason for the deletion of this attributes but going forward will take measures to not repeat such errors from our end.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Phill,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This is the first time we came across the "restricted_byway" tag so missed it from adding it to our workflow check. Will let my team know of this and will try to not repeat this error again.

Happy mapping!

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hey skquinn,

Thanks for looking into this edit. In NA we saw couple of cases where there will be a do-not-enter sign board but in reality the way is actually not a oneway. To avoid confusion my team decided to:

1. Add oneway if there is a do-not-enter board supported by a oneway board or
2. Add turn restrictions when there is only a do-not-enter board.

This is to make sure only accurate information flows to OSM from our end. If you believe our assumption is not accurate do let us know. We are actively looking forward to work along with the community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Phil,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This is an unlikely edit that came passed through our editing process. As a part of the editing process we do check if there are any existing features that cross the roads we add and fix them according to the sources if required. Recently we are facing some issues with features not loading in ID which is causing such issues. Will do a root cause analysis for this issue and try to avoid such issues in future.

For now I fixed the buildings in this location. Do let us know if there are any such issues.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi LivingWithDragons,

Thanks for looking into this edit. The workflow which our editors follow, includes verification of all satellite imagery sources that are existing in iD. That is the reason the imagery_used has two different imagery sources. In this particular case the imagery is not good enough to come to a conclusion. The missing road is identified but if it is leading to a single entity or multiple houses is not clear. So we valued the local community member edits in the surrounding areas and added it as a residential road. If you think it is wrong please do change the road classification.

We are actively looking forward to work along with the community and learn more from them. If you have any further concerns please do reach out to us.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks for responding back Jerry, no worries at all. I can totally understand how complicated it is to dig into all edits in one location.

We are always open to coordinate with the community and learn more from them. We believe together we can improve the quality of OSM and make a better world. Do let us know if there are any other concerns on our editing.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi SK53,

Sorry for a late response and thanks for looking into these edits. Can you provide more information on what the editor went wrong in this case?

My team member went ahead and added the missing roads. Since we didn't have a open resource data to add street names in UK we requested the editors not to add any of the street names. Also, we specifically requested our editors not to touch buildings since they were added by local community members who has more local knowledge than us. So the editor limited himself to adding just the missing roads. Please do let me know if something went wrong in this case.

We are looking forward to coordinate with the community and learn more form them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi skquinn,

Thanks for looking into our edits. We were following the OSM wiki standards where it clearly stated to add residential roads for in and around residential areas and service roads leading to individual or commercial buildings. Following this information our editor had made this change. But I believe this information can vary from one location to other. I believe you have more local knowledge than us in justifying your edit. Going forward we will be extra careful with such edits.

Thanks for fixing this as well. Please do let us know if there are any other such issues you came across. We are actively looking forward to work along with the community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Danysan95,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This is a pure blunder from our editor and we communicated the same as well. The satellite imageries are not clear and there is another building next to this road end so the editor got confused with the connection. Will note your feedback seriously and will communicate to my team on not repeating such errors going forward.

Please do let us know if there are any other errors being generated from my teams end. We are actively looking forward to work along with the local community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Horza,

Thanks for looking into this edit. Our team in general verifies all the satellite imagery sources available and adds data as per the most recent one. In this particular case since the road remained the same in all the sources we added it as per Mapbox imagery and kept is as a source.

Please do let us know if there are any other suggestions you came across. We are actively looking to work along with the local community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks for your complements GinaroZ. We are looking forward to work along with the local community and learn more from them. If there are any insights that you want to share, please feel free to reach us out.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi oba510,

Thanks for looking into this edit. The editor has made this edit as per aerial imagery but by mistake forgot to split the road and deleted the entire segment. Ideally it should have been caught in our review system but since OSMCha is not working, we missed to identify the deleted segment.

Thanks for reverting the changes and fix it back in OSM. Please do let us know if there are any other such errors. We are actively looking forward to engage with the community and learn more from them.

Happy Mapping!

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi MikeN,

Thanks for looking into this edit. The editor added turn restrictions in this case because of double yellow lines. We didn't know this rule is not applicable in South Carolina. Will do more research on South Carolina traffic rules and update our workflows accordingly. Will update my team and make sure this error is not repeated again.

Please do let us know if there are any such mistakes being generated from our end. We are actively looking forward to engage with the local community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Trigpoint,

Thanks for looking into the edit. This is a pure blunder from our editor, which was communicated and correcter as well. We are pro-actively doing a parallel audit of all the edits made by our team to avoid such errors.

We are committed to add top quality data to OSM and any of your inputs to improve our process will be considered seriously. Do let us know if there are any other such errors.

Regards,
Jothirnadh