Hi JaLooooNz,

Hope you are doing great. Thanks for reviewing our edits. As per OSMwiki the roads with link attribute do not have street names(osm.wiki/Highway_link) This is the reason why we removed the street name as the highway was tagged as motorway_link at the time we reviewed the area Pertaining to the classification, there was a discussion between the mappers Jay May & feta2 (osm.org/changeset/78894198) and then Highway classification was retained as motorway_link .

Kindly help us understand the correct classification here and also for future use, let us know whether we need to retain the street name for the link roads or can we make the edits as per WIKI.

Thanks,
Harish

Hello JaLooooNz,

Trust you are well & Safe !

Thanks for your time in reviewing the edits made and providing your valuable feedback. We are investigating on this and will get back to you

Thank you & Happy Mapping

Hi grabsg,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Singapore, I have come across one of your edits for "way 706264583" - Primary_link.

However, basis of your comment I think that this link segment will not restrict traffic flow from Cuppage Road to Killiney Road instead a turn restriction will work here.

Please review and suggest if you think otherwise

Thanks in advance.

Hi JaLooNz,

Hope you are doing great. Thank you for your valuable feedback. Accidentally selected both ways and nodes, will ensure similar edits are not repeated here after.

Thank you,
harishpuppala.

Hi Mhaetrl,

I could see almost every segment with in this changeset is changed as Service, but road classification will be vary while moving from location to location.

Can you please justify the edits made and it would be great if you provide any source referred.

Thank you,
harishpuppala

Hi mueschel,

Thank you for the Quick response.

I made the hanging segment as Drivable by connecting it to the nearby Primary Road.

This will solve the error here and correct me i am wrong.

Thank you,
harishpuppala.

Hi mueschel,

One of you edits resulted in a hanging segment (way 598969026) which is marked as Living street.

Can you please justify the edits made, whether that segment is really required or not.

Thanks,
harishpuppala

Hi Adiatma IRM-RV

While working near Kendari, i have across a way which is tagged as Living Street but none of the resource support it's existence.
way 598969015

Can you please cross verify your edits and do the needful.

Thanks,
harishpuppala

Hi Mishari,

Please justify your edits made for a one way being a dead end road. Is this Correct ??
way 298812925 (node 3027589830)

Thanks ,
harishpuppala.

but now*

Sorry for the Typo Error.

Hi Nutchanon,

As per Digi Standard imagery i edited it in curve shape but not reverted as suggested.

Will make sure such edits are not repeated in future.

Thank You,
harishpuppala

Test

We use JOSM Tool to map the data .

As the pre-existing data is in sync with ground truth(bing), geometry changes are done wrt to bing.

Highlighted areas in red(screenshot 1) indicate the geometry is in sync with bing as per josm tool, whereas the same data seems to be offset when referred in osmcha/achavi(refer screenshot 2) .

The Satellite imagery(bing) in Josm and osmcha/achavi seems to be different. So please suggest on the imagery

Here is the link to our project page -
https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data

Please refer the doc for detailed explanation.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F02QWH1rPeSpXa7uh44vhMbxXnVYwUO3rqFwi3yKeuk/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you.

Hi GOwin,

For the following changeset (59414433) Imagery which we have followed is Bing as pre-existing data is in sync with Bing imagery in this area when compared with other resources.

Most of the existing data has an offset of 5m wrt to ESRI image.

So in order to maintain consistency with respect to existing data, we have followed bing imagery.

Please suggest, if we are on right understanding.

Thanks,
Harish P