Ky_AT's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 179750926 | Hi fortera_au,
|
|
| 179761311 | Hi fortera_au,
|
|
| 171813637 | Hi Udarian, Thanks for the feedback. I changed the classification back to it’s previous state in Changeset: 172003169. |
|
| 161709647 | Hi HairyCoo, Thank you for reaching out. I have reassessed my edits to following your query and observed that the polygon earlier had area=yes and highway=residential tags, while the community guidelines suggest highway=residential tag should not be used on ares. Hence I opted to downgrade to highway=pedestrian, but I'm seeing that it's not the case either. I have made the corrections. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions. |
|
| 166515815 | Hi Sylabowy Kot, thank you for getting in touch via commenting on the changeset since I am, along with other members of the TomTom mapping team, directly notified that way.
|
|
| 164192709 | Hi fortera_au, Thank you for your observation. I created the missing way as there are painted markings visible in the latest Esri world imagery at -31.9532693, 115.9841392. I also referred to recent TomTom propriatory traces at this location to support the way's existence here and westerly beyond the road markings I refer to. |
|
| 164192709 | Hi fortera_au, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you. |
|
| 147557293 | Hi rskedgell, On review from your feedback I realized that the dual carriageways should not have been extended and better understand the criteria for dual carrigways in OSM. So thank you for making the corrections. |
|
| 162602608 | Thank You for your suggestions. I reverted my changes. |
|
| 162602608 | Hi AntMadeira, Thank you for reaching out to me. I have added the oneway tag to the entire stretch based on the TomTom GPS traces with a high density of traffic flow toward the west side. However, I dug a bit deeper and understood that the small stretch should remain two-way to access the destinations (Estaleiros da Camara). I misinterpreted this due to the very limited traffic flow in the east direction. I have made the corrections. |
|
| 161640471 | Hi Spaghetti Monster🍝, whilst making the edits I had some technical issues which prompted me to submit incorrect and incomplete edits which left issues on the map that you identified and commented on. I should have immediately gone back in and made the fixes but I neglected to do so. Now I have made the corrections to resolve the issues you reported and revise the road geometry to reflect the revised road layout. |
|
| 161640471 | Hi Spaghetti Monster, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you. |
|
| 159655373 | Hi @rskedgell,
|
|
| 156553949 | Hi MapGrid, Thank you for the quick notice and happy mapping. |
|
| 156553949 | Hi MapGrid, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you. |
|
| 155509198 | Thank you, Happy Mapping! |
|
| 155509198 | Hi bxl-forever, Thank you for your feedback. I modified the geometry and added the barrier tags and I should have included this information in my changeset comment as per your comment. Regarding the Jersey Barrier, I can see you are absolutely right, as per 2023 Mapillary when looking from a different angle Jersey barrier has moved away and bollards have been installed. I added the jersey barrier according to the 2022 mapillary available at this location as I did not see the alternative newer Mapillary. I have made the corrections.
|
|
| 154960456 | Hi KingKratos, I usually update the JOSM version when the new plugin libraries, or platforms that the application relies on are updated and compatible along with a few more bug fixes. In the previous version of JOSM, our technical team observed and suggested not to update the JOSM as it crashes abruptly while loading a few plugins. I am going to upgrade to the latest version once we have successfully tested and the crashing issues are resolved. |
|
| 154960456 | Hi KingKratos, Thank you for your feedback. I will look into it and will get back with my version. |
|
| 153971392 | Hi Dan_Fi, Thank you for sharing the detailed insight. This is one of the odd instances where my analysis went wrong due to conflict of sources. I will take this into consideration while mapping further. Apology for the inconvenience! |