Hi Alexey Lukin,
My name is Surander, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for reaching out and sharing the latest information.
Regarding my edits, I updated the road direction based on Lyft-owned street-level imagery from September 2026 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wU1A_eyzazK9DvdqXo1v37-vftxwZ97K/view?usp=sharing), which showed one-way traffic movement at the time of review. Based on that evidence, I believed the one-way tag was appropriate.

At the moment, we do not have the most recent ground-level sources to verify the current situation. Since you confirmed that the road has been two-way since October 15, 2026 and the direction has already been updated accordingly. Your local knowledge of the area is extremely valuable and helps ensure that OSM reflects the latest ground conditions.

I apologize for not reviewing the history of the segment where the changes in traffic pattern were mentioned & thank you again for sharing the information.

Regards,
Surander

Hi andriu44,
My name is Surander, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Regarding the edits, I added the ways using outdated sources, which was my mistake. I sincerely apologize for the error and will be more careful when making future edits.
After reviewing the area again, I agree that the aerial imagery is outdated & also, the latest ground-level imagery from October 2, 2026 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YWodFS2L5cALc-_aj7GYUyfVCMhT5qVv/view?usp=sharing), shows that the right side of the way (way/1570233337) is currently blocked by construction cones, likely due to ongoing minor construction work.
Regarding the revert request, the required corrective edits have already been completed by another OpenStreetMap mapper in this changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/190813884

Happy Mapping!
Surander

Hi karson_,

Thanks a lot for sharing your observations. I’m Surander, a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. I added the layer=-1 & tunnel=culvert tags only at the location where the road intersects the waterway. This was based on the OSM Wiki guidelines and is also clearly supported by Lyft-owned aerial imagery (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x1XYIscDyZ1La2QIId5JPQdz7VDmoJI3/view?usp=sharing) dated 11 April 2026.Since the remaining section of the waterway does not affect routing,I left it unchanged.

I hope this clarifies the reasoning behind my edits. I'm happy to answer any additional questions regarding my changesets or discuss this further if needed.
Regards,

Surander

Hi isotopicmoting,

My name is Surander, and I work as a mapper with the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for reporting this issue. The mistake was not intended to convey anything more specific; it was an inadvertent oversight on my part.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the mistake and any inconvenience resulting from these edits. The typo has now been corrected in the changeset: changeset/184298285.

Best Regards,
Surander

Hi chickpeas,

My name is Surander & I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Many thanks for letting me know about the latest data & reverting my edits. I realize now that I mistakenly used outdated aerial imagery, while the existing data had already been corrected. I sincerely apologize for the oversight and any inconvenience these edits may have caused.
Thank you for your contribution to the OSM!

Regards,
Surander

Hi Baloo Uriza,

My name is Surander, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I have corrected the way in this changeset: changeset/179926704#map=18/36.031870/-95.875223&layers=P. Regarding the lanes tag, there was no clear satellite or street-level imagery available to verify the lane information accurately, so I left the lanes suffix tags unchanged.
I apologize for any inconvenience caused by these edits. I will be more careful with future changesets.

Regards,
Surander

Hi Frank Peng,
My name is Surender, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for correcting the mistake. You’re right—part of the way (way/16497322#map=18/36.000085/-75.650799&layers=P) is visible on the map, and I removed the highway tag by mistake.I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience these edits may have caused. I’ll be more attentive in future changesets.
Thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Regards,
Surender

Hi Baloo Uriza,
Thank you very much for your valuable insights.
We don't have detailed backgrounds to accurately map the waterways and other underlying systems. That's why we avoid changing the geometry of such ways and instead focus on updating only the tags to prevent conflicts where incorrect elements are clear (e.g., a road couldn't cross a waterway stream on the same level). If someone has enough experience and the necessary maps to update, they can proceed with those changes. I hope this clarifies my changeset edits.
Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Surander

Hi Baloo Uriza,

My name is Surender, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.
I appreciate your feedback. Regarding my edits: I updated the geometry to reflect a diamond interchange and added two missing motorway_links based on ESRI World Imagery (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgH_0KOEuzEenPAtzkS2Qt0f3wp8Y1qa/view?usp=sharing) and Lyft’s street-level imagery from April 2025 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CvCw4REiwqoksXMvCCKON04IpKPiONaI/view?usp=sharing).
I wasn’t fully familiar with destination and related tagging, so I only added the missing linkways with the highway type and oneway tag & left other tags.
Thank you for making the necessary corrections. I apologize for any inconvenience my edits may have caused, and I’ll be more careful with future changesets.

Happy Mapping!
Best Regards,
Surander

Hi Flap Slimy Outward,

My name is Surander and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your notification regarding my edits in Tivoli Village and for reverting them.
I sincerely apologize for this error and for any inconvenience it may have caused. My decision to reclassify the highway as a 'service' road was based on an analysis of recent data. Specifically, the Lyft-owned background (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GXsnDGWoNGjzG4R_1XHh836LzH4426rF/view?usp=sharing) from January 2025 and Lyft-telemetry from the past week (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZShJUyq2hiuAXPpbVsIz718sewTbgHdw/view?usp=sharing), that we are used for edits indicated the presence of parked vehicles and active vehicle movement, which I interpreted as general access. However, I did indeed overlook the road surface and other indicators. I apologize for the error and appreciate your diligence.

The screenshots will be available for a month. Please let me know if you are unable to view them within this timeframe – I could generate them once again.

Happy Mapping!
Best Regards, Surander

Hi ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy,

My name is Surander and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your insight! I apologize for overlooking the value transition. We will revise our policy in light of your OSM comments. Thank you for promptly correcting this error.
I updated the lanes tag based on Lyft-owned background (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pUWfmPGHeb1MaryyI1opJPAESHzBIe_i/view?usp=sharing) and Lyft-owned street-level imagery (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P3cVNZqhjjV0gI9ntVjuIPI2WK_aTZL1/view?usp=sharing) dated August 2025. The space available for vehicle entry before this node was quite narrow, which is why I made the change.
I hope this explains the rationale behind my edits. The screenshots will be available for a month. Please let me know if you are unable to view them within this timeframe – I could generate them once again. Happy mapping!

Best regards, Surander

Hi ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy,

My name is Surander and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you for your insight! I want to clarify that I did not change the lane count or placement tags within this changeset. My edits primarily involved adding turn:lanes based on Lyft-owned background:(https://drive.google.com/file/d/15EM3mhCL6kbhqImzgOZfxKlVBgGOXtDc/view?usp=sharing) & Lyft-owned street level imagery (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Qs5o1-zeFi2RCwXjnh_7qBp_nXibfMu/view?usp=sharing), which is from July, 2025. Based on given Lyft-owned street level imagery, there is a marking in the rightmost lane which is related to slight_right. I hope this clarifies my edits, the screenshots will be available for a month. Please let me know if you are unable to view them within this timeframe – I could generate them once again.

Best Regards, Surander

Hi Baloo Uriza,

I apologize for missing placement tags. Thank you for your insights.

Best regards, Surander

Hi Baloo Uriza,

Thank you very much for explaining why you split the roads that I added. We will update our best practices mapping with these kinds of examples.

Best regards, Surander

Hi Baloo Uriza,

My name is Surander, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you very much for sharing your local insights and for removing our edits.

Best regards, Surander

Hi Baloo Uriza,

My name is Surander, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you very much for pointing this out.
According to our approach, we try to realign roads to the middle if there is significant misalignment according to the backgrounds and telemetry. However, in this case, I missed the other approach of indicating that the road is not drawn in the middle by using the already applied placement tag. I sincerely apologize for this error, where I failed to consider all the available information. Thank you very much for correcting it.

Best regards, Surander

We have a satellite image of this location from November 2024: (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SZekQuoxwcpZfzIR-uApWFv-wuiGQOcE/view?usp=drive_link), along with telemetry data from the past week (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnkKo9HxdCQF-vQPBM-q7_nZU4u6SDnb/view?usp=drive_link). Indeed, it looks like the roundabout has been completed. We have corrected the geometry in this changeset: (changeset/162934788#map=15/25.59536/-80.32081&layers=N). I hope this aligns with your information regarding the reconstruction.

Hi, Udarian

My name is Surander and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. Here is Lyft-owned satellite imagery: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z-7IaYaF73h_t7nyknZR5Dgk57R7s34z/view?usp=drive_link.
I adjusted the road type based on Lyft-owned telemetry data: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S02hY2KiAm8Ib5dmIr_sq9ha2frBl6eE/view?usp=drive_link. However, I overlooked the fact that, the roads have different surfaces, and we lack clear evidence that the road is non-pedestrian. I have corrected my mistake in this changeset: changeset/162927538. I sincerely apologize for the oversight. Thank you very much for your insight and your contribution to OSM.

Best regards, Surander

Hi, Allison

My name is Surander and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you very much for pointing this out. Indeed, the parking aisles tagging is more appropriate in this case. I have corrected the highway tag in this changeset: changeset/156428452#map=18/43.601879/-116.244468. I apologize for the incorrect road type application.
Best regards,
Surander