Hi Map-Finder

Can you please check this relation: 13298645.
On this relation missing way "to" for this turn restriction.
I looking this turn restriction but I do not have street level imagery with which I can fix this turn restriction.

Thanks in advance Borovac

Hi,

All the buildings were like this one,
(way/1147509546)
with exactly the same double geometry.

All best Milan

Hi Phil,
I deleted a large amount of buildings because every building had duplicate geometry. Yes the comment should have been to remove duplicate building geometry.
All best Milan

Pozdrav kandicst,
koliko je meni poznato kulturni centar se nalazi na ovoj lokaciji way/555525893
da li je doslo do neke izmene u lokaciji ili je ovo jos jedan za koji ja ne znam da postoji?
Hvala unapred borovac

Hvala, Aleksa vratio sam sporan ref

thank you :)

Hi tzruns,
Could you please check the name of this street again. "way/979951652" since you just added the name, on the OS OpenMap Local (October 2022) map is another name for that street. "Lily Road"
All best borovac

Hi Graham,

I am adding street names and roads that are missing on the map, I came across this change of yours where you added a name that does not match the name from this map - OS OpenMap Local (October 2022). You added the name at the beginning of this street "name=Tanfield Gardens" (way/305444609) while on the mentioned map the name of this street is "name=Whistlewood Close". Can I ask you to look again to determine the correct street name.
Thanks in advance borovac

Hi Anders,

I have used flood_prone(flood_prone=*) because based on imagery it looked like due to a high-water level of the lake this part gets flooded and, in that case, having flood_prone tag can give you a very valuable information. However, you are right, after reviewing this road it looks to be at the same level as rest of the ground, and lake is a bit lower, so I have removed the tag.

I have applied the tag that looked most appropriate from what can be seen on the imagery. I tend to use Mapillary and KaartaView whenever it is possible, also topographic maps and other available resource, but in this case, it was very limited. I should have put on a MapNote so someone doing a survey could fix the issue properly. Sorry, I will do this more often in the future.

As for the issue itself, I have been working on Keepright issues(https://keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=48.20808&lon=16.37221) this is why I refer to this as an issue, it is not an issue like broken administrative boundaries, or unconnected highways, etc. However, it points out that there is some intersection between road and water on the same level, so either there is missing bridge, layer tag, missing culvert, ford, flood_prone, or geometry itself needs to be adjusted. By fixing these “issues“ map tend to be more accurate, right, and I do agree in this case I have made an unintentional mistake but feel free to check my edits, I do not edit just to fix the “issue“ but to have most accurate state on the ground.

Thank you for pointing this out to me so I can pay more attention, sorry once again for causing inconvenience, but I can assure you that in these almost 46.000 changesets it will be hard to find more issues (I do not say it is impossible, but hard 😊). I really try not to make mistakes and I really appreciate interaction with the community.

If you passed by and determined that the road could not flood, adjust according to the condition. When you look at the imagey, you only come to the conclusion that the road can flood. In that case, if it is as you say, they are two separate water surfaces and they should be done that way, and the road then goes where it goes and does not need the flood_prone tag.

Hi Anders,
that tag (please read wiki page of that tag) is in use to say that the road may be flooded, as you can see from the imagery here this road can be flooded. There is not a single mistake on my part here, now whether you like it or not this way of tagging, that can be discussed.
All best borovac

Thanks for bringing it to my attention and for correcting an unintentional mistake.

Slucajno.

Hi NKA,
Thanks for the information, in the future I will only use the suggested ones imagery.
All best borovac

Hi Andy,
Since I can not find enough information, is it OK to mark this just as area=yes, access=permissive and add it to University polygon or should I just put a map note for someone local to resolve this?
All best Milan

Hi Andy,

I willlook tomorrow. I am not able to check now, I don't have access to a computer.

All best Milan

Hi A67-A67,
the removal was not done without motivation, it was requested by OSM DataWorkingGroup, I had to remove all these name variants since the source was Wikipedia, which is not by the rules. If you have knowledge for these name variants, please feel free to add them.
Sincerely, borovac

4/1 treba da bude sad cu promeniti

Hi SomeoneElse,

I have fix geometries but I need help with ground near hospital. Is this park or some other land type (53.9819376, -1.068647)
Also, I do not have any ground truth for the parcel north of North Field (53.9842501, -1.0745212). Is this also part of university or not?
All best Milan

Thank you too.
Best regards Milan