Hi Skyper,

Since I did not personally survey the area, I was slightly skeptical about adding source as survey. Our driver had personally communicated this to us. It is a privately owned road with "residents only" access.
Coming to the routing island issue, since I was editing in near the vicinity, I observed missing road connection and added it and tweaked geometry, I did not see any proof to add the access tags attributed to driveways.

I looked into the private tag causing the issue, since we previously used to add private to all driveways leading to residential houses, our editor added it in the past. Recently US community has asked us to discontinue the process and we are not doing it any more. Hence Reverted the access in this change set: 91422440.
Please let me know if you have additional suggestions.

Thanks,
Ganesh

Apologies for the typo in Change set. The actual change set is 91421675.

Hi Skyper,

We apologize for our error and delay since this is an old edit it took time to investigate and identify the reasons for it. This instance is a sheer human error from both editor and reviewer. The editor had just newly joined our process while making this edit. We have passed on the wrong edit as a suggestion to the editor.
Coming to my edit, I was just concerned about the topology error based on directionality and fixed it with out paying much attention to vicinity. This has been fixed in this changeset:123455667.
Let me know if you have any further suggestions. Happy to work with you.
Thanks,
Ganesh

Hello Skyper,

Apologies for the delay in response. I was on long leave.
In the above changeset, I have removed one-way for the small segment (osm.org/way/751610238#map=19/37.83953/-121.25850&layers=N) as it was causing an island topology error.

Let me know if you have any suggestions.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hello Skyper,
Apologies for late response. I was on long leave.
We did not add the access restriction only based on the imagery source. We have a driver who provided us with local ground reality, suggesting that it is a private road and hence edited it. let me know your view/suggestion.

Regards,
Ganesh

Local knowledge for this edit is an update from the Mayor's office and city council members.

Hi Freebeer,

I have cleaned up the segment (changeset # -74810585). There was an issue of conflict and the user missed it. I have advised the editors to be careful in handling the conflicts. Let me know your suggestions.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hi Freebeer,

Thanks a lot for bringing this up. The 2 users have been working on the same area and had edited the segment in question. While the 2nd editor had received a conflict, the editor went ahead and gave "Keep mine" which lead to the duplication and henceforth the detaching of the initial segment. I have cleaned up the segment (changeset # -74810585).

Our team generally works from 11.30pm PST to 8.30am PST bearing few exceptions.
I have advised the editors to be careful with the conflicts and be careful with their edits.
Let me know in case you have any other suggestions.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hi Andy,

These are latest licensed imageries from DigitalGlobe/Maxar. We are working on a standard commenting to ensure this is being communicated in OSM. I was in touch with few other community members and have taken their feedback as well. We would start following the commenting hygiene in a day or two.

Regards,
Ganesh

True. Makes sense. I will definitely take this up and deep dive if there are any specific patterns that is being followed in OSM and get back to you in a day or two. Thanks a lot Mvexel, Kevin for your inputs.

Best regards,
Ganesh

Hi Mvexel, Kevin,

Our editors generally tag the cases with "Source:Digital Globe". This editor has however missed doing it. I would definitely go ahead advise the editor to be careful and add the same. It does not reflect in the changeset but in the Way ID. Example where our editor used the latest private imageries - osm.org/way/723826066

Let me know your suggestions.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hi Mvexel,

We have the private stack of latest imageries from DigitalGlobe. The imagery is from July 2019 which clearly suggests that the construction are complete. If there are any local updates much recent from you, we will definitely go ahead revert the changes, Let me know your suggestion.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hi Mvexel,

We have the latest imagery from July 2019. As freebeer suggested, there is a lag in the latest imageries being made available in OSM. Let me know in case you need any updates.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hi Georg,

As discussed over mail, I have added the road connecting Valley Ranch point and Valli farms road. I have advised the editor to be careful and not repeat the issue going forward. Thanks again for your updates, Please let us know your suggestions.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hello mvexel,

Thanks for your update. I will keep the team informed about the lane count and ensure such an error is not repeated.
I have a query on the same.
osm.org/way/721139314 should have lanes=4 as per the Open street cam and the mapillary imageries available while the osm.org/edit?way=721139315 should have 1 right?
Also osm.org/way/36633881 seems to have 6 lanes with 4 in forward and 2 in backward.

Let me know your suggestions.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hello mvexel,

Thanks for your update. It was really helpful. Regarding the GPS tarces, It's our customer data and we are bound by Legal, Privacy and PR rules to not share them.
Continue sharing your valuable feedback which will help us make better edits in OSM.

Regards,
Ganesh

Thanks for your update tux67. Looking forward for your support in the future.

Hi Georg V,

We have stopped giving private to the segments (Like the ones entering the Gas station or parking - which can also be used as a Via segment). However we are still not able to confirm whether it is right as per OSM regulations to give Access=Destination. We are working on this. Will update once we have clearer picture.

Regards,
Ganesh

Hi User_5359,

Yes, the router should capture the higher class road as you have pointed out. Thanks for your suggestion - Access=customer. Another suggestion we have received is Access=destination. We will perform an analysis on the same and get back to you. Looking forward for more suggestions from you.

Regards,
Ganesh

We try to use the latest version as soon as possible. However as pointed out by you, the issue seems to persist in .4 as well. We are trying to be little more careful during edits and audit the case post edit.

Regards,
Ganesh