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

Hi TZorn,

Thanks for looking into the edit. The editor by mistake turned off the building layer in iD while editing and ended up making this error. This was identified in our review system and got fixed as well.

Do let us know if there are any other such errors. We are looking forward to work along with the community and learn from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Robert,

Thanks for looking into this edit. The editor was trying to improve the misaligned roads in this area and saw this road to be passing through buildings. He deleted them to add appropriate roads but due to OSM server issues he failed to add them back and missed it later. The feedback has been communicated the editing team and we will make sure to not repeat such errors in the future. I went ahead and fixed the issue as well (changeset: 68502071)

Please do reach us our if there are any issues in the future. We are looking forward to collaborate with the community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi canfe,

Thanks for looking into this edit. The editor didn't recreate the road over here. He added a no_left_turn and a no_u_turn restriction at this node to which iD editor split the old way into two ways. During this process one way segment got assigned version 1 and the other half segment version increased by one. Hope this answers you question.

Please do let us know if there are any other issues in this case. We are looking forward to collaborate with the local community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi chachafish,

Thanks for looking into this edit. We don't live here, but as per street level imagery of Bing and all other satellite imagery sources it was clear that there is a gate so our editor considered to be missing data and added this information. I believe your local knowledge is more accurate than any other sources. If you believe this edit is wrong please let us know, we will revert the changes back. As per your comments I made few changes to the added road.
Changeset: node/6335247552/history

Do let us know if there are any other issues from our end. We are looking forward to collaborate with the local community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks for looking into this ndm, the satellite imagery available in this location are not clear enough to identify it as a pitch. As per your comments I made the changes. Thanks again for your valuable feedback.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks for your inputs ndm, Added back the oneway.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi ndm,

While removing the parking roads from The Co-Operative Food area (As per recent imagery) editor noticed this way being odd. Taking into consideration that a oneway tag should either be assigned for the complete road segment or should not be added at all, he removed the tag. If you consider this is a wrong edit, do let us know so we will go ahead and revert back our changes.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Paul,

Thanks for looking into this edit. From Satellite imagery the barrier was clearly identified but it was hard to determine its classification. To remove ambiguity the editor was asked to add it as "barrier=yes" per OSM wiki so a local mapper can further improve it.

Let us know if this is creating data issues. We are looking forward to collaborate with local community members and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks ndm, your inputs are valuable. We will also do a research on this and share our findings as well.

Hi Phill,

Thanks for looking into this edit. Fixed the extra segment that has been added by mistake.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi RathcooleRambler,

Thanks for looking into this edit. We were trying to add granular high quality data to represent the on-ground information. I went through this wiki before standardizing our workflow but somehow missed this line on just adding service roads. I will re-visit the workflow and make changes according to the wiki suggestions.

Thanks again for looking into this edit. Do let us know if there are any other suggestions you want us to keep a track off. We are looking forward to work along with the community and learn more from them.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi DaveF,

Thanks for looking into this edit. As per you comment reverted the changes (changeset: 67792068). The parking aisle was added considering the parked vehicles in this location. Going forward we will not add parking aisles unless there are payed markings on the road. The second segment was added by mistake, which is corrected now.

Do let us know if you are coming across any of such errors. We are actively trying to engage with community and learn more from them to add high quality data to OSM.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Thanks for looking into this ndm. How did you identify that Esri World Imagery is not aligned properly to real world? If there is an easier way I would love to learn and implement that into our mapping process as well.

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Phill,

Thanks for your comments. Our objective is to add as much appropriate information as possible to OSM rather than adding wrong information. Since we had limited context of this location from satellite imagery we added just the road class and thought it can be helpful for a local member to easily add access tags to this roads. At least to my knowledge the whole OSM data is developed in this manner -"Building data on top of individual contributions".

Please do understand we are working towards the improvement of OSM rather than damaging the quality and reputation of OSM.

As per your comments I added private tags to this roads: changeset/67695832#map=18/52.96447/-2.66516

Regards,
Jothirnadh

Hi Phill,

Thanks for looking into this edit. I don't know the exact reason for duplication of ways in this case. Both the overlapping ways were uploaded from my team members but changes were uploaded 20 mins apart. ID editor must have shown the second editor the edits already made in this location, but it failed to fetch that data. Will dig more deeper into this issue and see what is the core reason for it.

I fixed the issue: changeset/67693693

I totally agree to your consideration on access problems, but we interpreted data in OSM can be added to the extent where we have the information and the extra or advanced information such as access tags can be added by the local members who has more context of this area. I believe that can help in creating more accurate and collaborated information. Also from our past learning we don't recommend our team members to add any information that is not clearly visible in Satellite/ street level imagery to make sure top quality data is only add to OSM from our end.

Regards,
Jothirnadh