Hi rarad74,
Thanks for pointing that out. I used Bing because it looked consistent with the other available imagery, but I see that it was outdated in this case. I didn’t spot any substantial changes between the two image layers requiring additional edits.
I’ll be more careful to check the imagery dates and compare the available sources before making similar edits.
Thanks again!

Hi simacekjakub, thank you for letting me know of this. I was looking at a building & highway intersection issue in my edit and ended up using Bing imagery for the shape adjustment. After your message I realized the low vegetation orthophoto layer. I will make sure to refer to that in any future edit in the area. Thank you once more, for your understanding.

Hi Flap Slimy Outward, thanks a lot for the clarification. I understand the concern much better now. Also thank you for manually restoring some affected relations already. I’ll review all the affected relations carefully from edit histories and identify the ones that I’d need to restore/remodel. All the best.

Hi Flap Slimy Outward, I removed the separately digitized HOV section in this changeset and managed the HOV information with lane tags under the main motorway section. While maintaining the route relations, the I-10 Metro ExpressLanes relation got overlooked apparently.
Please allow me some time to discuss the most appropriate action to remedy this situation. Would you suggest adding the main motorway sections containing the HOV tags to the relation would be the proper fix?
I’d appreciate your input on this. All the best.

Hi jplahti, glad to hear that it helped. Happy Mapping!

Hi b-jazz, thank you for making the corrections and thank you for reaching out to me to explain what went wrong. Kindly noted

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

Hi asabea,

Thank You for your contribution. I have fixed validation error for intersecting buildings (1492914974, 1492914976, 1488939850, 1488939849)
) within your 2 fixed tasks. Take a closer look while data upload. Happy Mapping!

Hi icarus72180, I managed the problematic member roles within the relation. I’m happy that you’re acknowledging the edits. Thank you for your time reviewing them, also please let me know if further updates and fixes would be needed there

Hi icarus72180, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi kuhni74,
Thanks for the note and the updates you made. I was focused on the multi-polygon relation changes at the time of my edit and didn’t catch the other updates nearby. Just reach out if other modifications are needed.

Hi kuhni74, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi DaveF, there was a small offshoot with the highway segment, causing a building-highway intersection error. While fixing that, I accidentally removed the layer tag. Thank you for pointing this out. I’ll double-check my similar previous edits as well, and be more aware moving forward.

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

Hi aceman444, the phrase "Highways (and other ways) can be also tagged with level=* when they are essentially bound to a floor of a building complex (such as multilevel parking buildings, railway stations or airports)." in OSM Wiki (level=*) has apparently misguided me during my edit. Thank you for making the corrections and kindly reaching out to remind the proper use of layer and level tags. I’ll be more aware of this in my future edits.

Hi KennyDap, please accept my apologies for making you feel like that. I don’t have such intentions. I also should have provided a clearer changeset comment.
My intention was to fix a multipolygon error which was received through OSM validation checks. osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Valid_multipolygon_conditions is stating that inner polygons must not overlap with outer polygons and not touch on common segments.
Thank you for your understanding on this matter.

Thank you for the message. I’m glad to help, happy mapping!

Hi ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy, thank you for making the corrections. Based on previous community discussions, we refrain from adjusting similar situations to this, so this was an oversight. I will be more mindful in my future edits. Thank you for your understanding, you have a nice day too.

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

Hi rskedgell, thanks for reaching out and highlighting this edit. I misinterpreted this situation from aerial imagery. Thanks for the correction and I'll take care to avoid this in the future.