Source: DigitalGlobe 2020-06-02, Mapillary

Привет, PlayerD1, я увидел, что вы добавили несколько объектов со ссылкой на MAPNIK; Maxar-Premium в этом пакете правок. Эти объекты не поддерживаются Maxar Premium или любыми другими общедоступными снимками которые я могу найти. Я удалил данные которые не удалось проверить, чтобы сохранить целостность данных OSM. Каждый может добавлять данные в OSM, если они соответствуют действительности и могут быть правильно процитированы. Если у вас есть какие-либо вопросы, не стесняйтесь спрашивать. Спасибо! -Tri_Hugger

source = Maxar Premium Imagery, Yandex Panorama

Aligned roads and updated geometry and classification of roads in Zonalny.

Thanks for the information. I’ll keep that in mind.

Thanks for the explanation. It was my understanding that most common routing engines (OSRM, graphopper) do not have the logic built in to determine a safe vs. non-safe crossing which is why it is common to add a foot=no tag to help with this. Could another tag such as “sidewalk=no” or “crossing=no” possibly be added for these cases?

Hello mikkolukas! I added the "foot=no" tag as a way to prevent pedestrians from crossing the highway at locations that are not marked with physical barriers, pavement markings and signage for pedestrian crossing (ex. way 787823760, way 789768853, way 789768777, way 741049472). Although an able-bodied person could potentially cross at any location, these are the intended crossings which protect pedestrians from vehicles by design. It seems inappropriate to suggest pedestrians cross at locations such as this, where a pedestrian island with “keep right” signs exists a few dozen meters away, even though there is not explicit signage restricting pedestrian crossings here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=56.46098030887571&lng=10.026305790471776&z=17.18922557441852&pKey=Ojl4F7gnlavCgT4lr3Fauw&focus=photo&x=0.49851064886684365&y=0.5902936264303927&zoom=0.

Mapillary was also used a as source.

Hello, I see recent clarifications you made on a few changesets osm.org/changeset/82842969, osm.org/changeset/82843887. Thanks for the feedback and I understand the permissive destination does not apply in these types of situations.

Source used was Esri World Imagery and Yandex Panorama.

Yandex Panorama also used as a source

Source is Bing Aerial Imagery.

Correcting source to SDFE aerial imagery and not Bing aerial imagery.

Correcting source to SDFE aerial imagery and not Bing aerial imagery.

Thank you.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I’ve revised the tags on the tertiary_links in this area, as it is the OSM highway modeling policy (osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction) to tag them as highway=construction, until construction has finished and is opened up to the public. This would keep the data as up to date as possible for routing purposes. My bigger concern is related to the cycleway segment (osm.org/way/774650960). This highway classification is blocking vehicle routing along Randersvej (osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=56.4252%2C10.5574%3B56.4195%2C10.5580). Is there potentially a detour in place for vehicles?

I do not see evidence of these highways in SDFE Aerial Imagery, which was cited. Could you please inform us what resources you are using?

I do not see evidence of these highways in SDFE Aerial Imagery, which was cited. Could you please inform us what resources you are using?

Thanks for letting me know. I removed the tag.

Correction:
source = SDFE aerial imagery, Mapillary