Hallo Langlaeufer,

Vielen Dank, dass du die Korrekturen vorgenommen und deine Einsichten geteilt hast.

Hi Tomas Straupis, thank you for reaching out. I have rewieved the discussion on K-modeling (osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:junction%3Droundabout#Connecting_ways_to_roadabouts) and here it seems from the satellite imagery that drivers need to enter the lanes of the roundabout in order to continue towards the next section. So I think connecting the segments to the junction on different nodes would be an improvement in this specific case. Please let me know what you think. I will be happy to discuss and widen my understanding.

Hi Tomas Straupis, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you

Hi scrambling_panda, thank you for making the corrections. Since the way/1192829847 had access=private tag, i added the same to the parking polygon for consistency. Based on your feedback the correct tag would be access=customers for both the driveway and the parking lot. I will perform the necessary updates. Thank you for your valuable insights.

Hi iandees,
Since the driveway entering the parking lot had private access tags, I updated the same access tag to the parking lot. Ground level imagery from 2020 is available on Bing Streetside with a closed gate visible; which I was also able to verify with more recent TomTom proprietary street level imagery. I understand that I should have been clearer in describing my edits and citing my sources in my changeset comments. I will be aware of this in my future edits. In light of the above explanations, please let me know if my changes are OK or still need adjustment.

Hi scrambling_panda, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi iandees, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Thank you for your understanding and your detailed explanations aceman444.Seeing similar roundabouts in the area were not split, we thought about following the community pattern and tried to think how the turn restriction can be modeled in that state. Changeset reverted to bring back the previous geometry and relations. Have a good day.

Hi aceman 444,
I have made the edit in order to address the issue of connecting approaching and departing segments at the same node as documented in: junction=roundabout#Connecting_ways
Changeset reverted based on your feedback. I will go on to fix the k-model issue, manage the turn restriction without splitting the roundabout (roundabout as via member, in compliance with osm.wiki/Relation:restriction#Members), thus, not disturbing any existing route relations. Please let me know if this will be alright.

Hi ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy, Thanks for reaching out.
Towards the northeast, the service way/1212714833 was connecting two residential roads and was only about 1 meter in length. I thought of maintaining the same configuration created by you, but extend the segment, but now I see you have updated it. Thank you for making the corrections. Anyway, I should have left a more descriptive changeset instead of the default one, to avoid confusion.

Hi Udarian,

Thanks for taking a look at the changeset. After review, I agree it’s not a clear situation. In Bing Streetside there are signs indicating Faculty & Staff parking. But in other sections there are signs internal to the parking area which are not clearly visible in Bing Streetside or Mapillary. These might indicated other conditional restrictions. Since it’s unclear, I changed to this back to access=permissive.

Hi Udarian,
I added the private tag for consistency with other service roads and parking lot areas already existing in OSM. From street level imagery it appears that the two gated entrances node/9884654407 and node/9884654392 are closed to the public. While the main entrance near node/9884654406 has a guard house at the entrance. There was no signage indicating No Trespassing or other access restrictions in street level imagery. It’s possible there are conditional access restrictions that are not posted when the street level imagery was captured. Let me know what you think.

Hi Udarian,
From my understanding of the OSM wiki access=disabled is not a valid tag. That’s why I changed it disabled=yes. I accidentally added the access=no tag and agree with your assessment, I’ll make that update. Let me know if you need any further information.

Hi Udarian,

Thanks for reaching out to me. I’ve added the private tag as per the ground level imagery where lift gates are visible.

If any further information is required, please let me know.

Hi hermann106, thank You for your contribution. I restored couple of buildings removed by you while working on Fix Intersecting Building challenge. Additionally, I performed the edits in all the tasks marked by you as Fixed without any edits done. Be careful while further mapping. Thank You!

Hello FRANCIS NDIRITU, Thank you for contribution!
I have removed the buildings way/1361308096, way/1361310683, way/1361310682 in Esri World Imagery
Make sure to use imagery layer mentioned in project's description. Happy Mapping!

Hello judithmurage
Thank You for your contribution.
Make sure to use imagery sources mentioned in a project - while quality checking I found incorrectly created buildings, for example ways: 1363363057, way/1363363056, way/1363363052.
Happy Mapping!

Hello fondolucy! Thank You for your contribution. Make sure to use imagery sources mentioned in a project - while quality checking I found incorrectly created buildings, for example ways: 1361682472, 1361447248, 1361965848. Happy Mapping!

Hi hiralee, thank You for your contribution. I changed maxspeed added by you to the way: 559644735 based on Mapillary data. Make sure to attribute ways correctly. Happy Mapping!

Hello Ali Farhatttt
Thank you for mapping!
I have Created missing building way/1331312379
way/1331312378
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!