I see this has been fixed now. Sorry for the false alarm.

This building overlaps with the one next to it. Please fix, thank you!

Hey there - there's a duplicate building at this location. Check it out and pls fix! There are also many other duplicate buildings in the area, please fix them too and happy mapping!

Hey there - there is a duplicated building here and in many other instances in this area. Check it out + please fix!

Hey there - looks like you uploaded a building twice.

Please use JOSM and the JOSM building plugin for better building quality. Few of the buildings are parallel where they should be. With the building plugin, select one building, subsequent building will align automatically in parallel.

See osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools

The link you're referencing ( https://github.com/mapbox/map-feedback/issues/315 ) was posted mistakenly. It clearly doesn't make sense to share links that can't be accessed by the public.

Feedback on maps appears as a submission form - see here: https://www.mapbox.com/blog/map-feedback/

With such a submission form comes an expectation of privacy that I want to take very, very seriously. For instance, some users submit personally identifiable information, such as their name together with their address. Some feedback is about the app the map is embedded in, or map design rather than OpenStreetMap data.

This is why as a general policy we don't open the feedback note directly to the public - but we're trying to write an as descriptive changeset comment as possible.

It is tempting to change this policy at least for feedback we can "safely deem to be appropriate to publish" and which is applicable to OpenStreetMap. We've started collecting map feedback more systematically just in the beginning of this year. I'd like to get a better sense of what feedback we're receiving before deciding whether or not to adjust this publication policy.

> which is ensure that there is an independent piece of evidence to support the statement in the note

Yeah, let's not add data to OSM that can't be independently verified.

By the way, we are placing all customer feedback as notes on OSM now. We do not pass on any feedback directly as the noise to signal ratio is too high and I am also not 100 % comfortable to post something publicly that people may submit assuming a private channel.

I hope it's useful feedback, we're taking our first steps here.

Accidental comment. Should say "Added service road"

I applied some fixes, check them out here: osm.org/changeset/28829370

Hey there, welcome to OSM! I'm seeing your traces don't have tags. Take a look at http://learnosm.org/ to get started mapping and make sure there are classifications to your geometry! Cheers :)

This may be a residential development rather than a neighborhood. Either way, it's for sure not a `place=hamlet` so this change is fine. i left a note for further investigation: osm.org/note/315502

Reverts a mistaken connection of ring Road Path to the bridge. See conversation on osm.org/changeset/28503245

Another test!

Another test - are you seein gthis?

Hello Eliane - this is a test.

Thanks for all the feedback.

> It's a real shame that MapBox are keeping 'issues' private when making them available to local mappers is likely to result in a better map for all.

SK53 - this edit goes actually back to to-fix http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=unconnected_minor1 and not to a map user feedback.

That said, I'm keen to share any worthwhile feedback that we receive with the OSM community. We're just not there yet.

Here's me counting on your patience ;-)

Hey there - would love to hear what you're thinking about border on river. Posted my thoughts here:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-latam/2014-December/000145.html

This is how I mapped a patch yesterday:

osm.org/#map=18/-10.94392/-69.25822

Cheers!

Ha, much more work to be done. Also: some seriously awesome changeset commenting functionality ;-)