Hi SK53,
Our team recently came across the edit way/881203327/history while going through this changeset. This particular way created by you was not matching with any of the satellite imageries available. Also since this road is not connected to any parent road segment, it was creating road connectivity issues. so we created a road connecting to parent road (way/881876901/history). Please do let us know if this edit is made using local knowledge and our addition is accurate or not. Will make sure to revert our edit based on your inputs.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Nakaner,

Thanks for the response. Since the editor is in leave today and the changeset has not been responded for 5 days I am stepping in to respond. After reviewing this edit, I consider the edit was wrongly made. I believe these highway=service roads should be converted to highway=footpaths as these bridges will be used to cross waterway ditches. Do let me know if my interpretation is accurate. I will inform the editor and make the necessary changes.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Andy,
Is it possible to revert the changes for the time being? There seems to be a lot of wrong edits in this changesets like: way/829263012/history

I have identified 23 similar errors already. Have not corrected it so far because a revert seems to be a better option over here.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Sure Andy, thanks for your suggestion. I will pass on this information to our editing team and get this sorted.

Regards,
Jothirnadh
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82414726

Hi Andy,

I have a small query. While we are trying to make sure all our editors add appropriate changeset notes, in case if they miss appropriate note like this case, can we ask them to add a comment or is it not required?

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Andy,

Thanks for looking into this edit. Looks like the editor is blocked from responding, so I am posting on her behalf. She was supposed to add commented information as a part of changeset notes, but missed it from her end by mistake in 94 changesets, so added it as a comment to give a better clarity to OSM community. I have communicated her mistake and she agreed to not repeat this mistake in future. Also, do let me know if there is a better way to edit changeset notes once added to OSM. We downloaded the FB detections from the link mentioned in FB wiki and just used it as a source to manually draw the road. So the road classification given to these roads are as per her understanding on OSM highway classification wiki. Do let me know if she interpreted the road classification wrongly, happy to get it corrected immediately.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi,

Few roads added in this changeset has wrong road classification like example: osm.org/edit?editor=id&way=747184985#map=2/0.0/0.0
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/78097521

Hi INVT_AMZL DSP,

This is wrong road classification. As per the surrounding areas it looks like a residential road. Can you explain me why this road is changed to tertiary road?

Regards,
Jothirnadh
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/78271837

Hi Vtmikevt, welcome to OpenSrtreetMap. This changes seem to be a bit off and going against OSM way of editing. Please go through OSM wiki before contributing any further data.

Regards,
Jothirnadh
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/76711468

Sure user_5359, I will keep a note of that going forward.

I didn't know my emails are getting refused. Thanks for bringing this to my notice, will work on getting that fixed.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi user_5359,

Thanks for your inputs. I didn't add the maxspeed tag to this road. Before my edit, there was a overlapping road on top of this road with multiple turn restrictions added to it. I removed that road and just corrected the turn restrictions. As a part of correcting the turn restrictions the road got split and is created a version1 which you mentioned above. I identified multiple speedlimit values for this road which are inappropriately added, but didn's correct them as I am lacking a proper source to correct it. Since there were multiple relations I edited this using JOSM.

Do let me know if any further information is required.

Regrds,
Jothrinadh

Hi tux67,

Sorry for the delayed response. The auditor was on leave for last three days so I am responding on his behalf. The bad data mentioned in the comment is intended to represent the bad GPS detections in this location. The auditor being new to OSM mistakenly used wrong terminology. Will give him a feedback of not repeating this further. Let us know if there are any concerns with the quality of his edits.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks for your inputs user_5359. I totally missed the node connectivity part to the entry and exit of the building. I changed the "tunnel" to "covered" tag. I will pass this information to the rest of my editing team as well.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi user_5359,

Thanks for your inputs. I have corrected the error and communicated the same to the editor as well. Will make sure to add this point to our SOP so other editors doesn't make the same mistake.

Regards,
Jothirnadh
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73340261

Hi messpert,

Thanks for looking into this edit. The editor who made this edit is on long leave, so commenting on behalf of her. Without complete source the edit has been made, so converted the road classification in to construction. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Nakaner,

Totally inclined with your suggestions and we are considering them as the valuable inputs to improve our editing process. Please do consider these errors as the new mapper errors as this is the first time the edits were made in Germany. From our past experience in the US we identified the land-use layer to be outdated or added from a wrong import and that is the reason we didn't consider that. But going forward we will consider your suggestion and make proper edits.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi tux67 & nakaner-repair,

Thanks for you suggestions and reverting back the changes. Our team considered your suggestions as top priority and stopped editing in this location completely. Please do let us know if there are any other such locations. We will make sure to not make any edits in those areas.

P.S: Posting in the absence of this particular editor.
Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi tux67 & nakaner-repair,

Thanks for you suggestions and reverting back the changes. Our team considered your suggestions as top priority and stopped editing in this location completely. Please do let us know if there are any other such locations. We will make sure to not make any edits in those.

P.S: Posting in the absence of this particular editor.
Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi SomeoneElse,

Thanks for your inputs. I will definitely love to implement your suggestion. Will have a larger discussion with the team and get back to you with inputs.

This editor is working in my team so I am taking the responsibility for his edits and responding accordingly. The reason why we took this approach is to avoid information mis-match among our team members. All the changeset comments were shared with the entire team to go through and learn from the suggestions. Its nothing like I am trying to mislead the editors in this particular case.

Please do provide your inputs on how the access rights work in England and Wales. But since we are falling under organised editing, it would be great if the information is shared across the group rather than a single editor.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Also corrected the wrong edit in this case: changeset/71704269