Hi Deepika,
well complexity will only rise. Maybe it is time to better train your staff and grow the employees into complete mappers.
By the way, problems just continue, see e.g. osm.org/changeset/135005539 and osm.org/changeset/135175317 plus many more. I think it is time to document each task at the wiki and, please, join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/major-problems-with-amazon-edits/98385.
Thanks and regards,
skyper

`oneway=yes` were deleted in osm.org/changeset/134486636

Hello mubshh,
which sources did you use? Please, always mention the used sources in your changeset.
Are you sure that this small part is `oneway=yes`? What does the user who added `oneway=no` say about it? Please, do not tell me you forgot to ask.
How about bicycles? Are they allowed to use the street in both directions.
Regards,
skyper

Hello mubshh,
the traffic signal (osm.org/node/10184105927) does not make sense, especially with `traffic_signals:direction=backward`.
Please, tell me why this was not caught by your internal review and the special review as promised in comment 15 of osm.org/changeset/129308457.
Regard,
skyper

Hi anilkgba,
while most of the changes seem to be alright, I wonder why you have deleted some of the ways and that many nodes. Looking at Maxar, Esri and Bing, I think at least osm.org/way/19393527 and osm.org/way/19394810 exist but maybe `track` is the correct value.
Additionally, I miss a track or service road to osm.org/node/201705976 from the south and e.g. a connection to the two building (osm.org/#map=19/35.65929705899554/-85.16212935740896). But you probably better know with your local knowledge.
Regards,
skyper

Hi,
still the same problems as in osm.org/changeset/135166090.
What kind of QA are you using prior to upload and for your review system?
Please, stop adding new objects. Instead, fix all your previous edits and discuss your future strategy.
Regards,
skyper

Hello,
despite your comment, you did not fix your workflow but you continue with this broken import with wrong values for `roof:shape` and strange values of height.
In fact you, did not even fix the objects of this changeset and did not answer my questions about `SOURCE_COD` and the origin of `height`.

Please, stop immediately and describe and discuss your workflow.

Greetings from a rather disappointed,
skyper

Dear anilkgba,
all three new turn relations express the identical u-turn restriction, e.g. only one (osm.org/relation/15772475) is needed/useful. But why did you delete instead of updating the old one (osm.org/relation/7672430)? Please, restore and use the old one.
Regards skyper

Hello anilkgba,
are there u-turns allowed at the ends of the dual-carriage parts (osm.org/node/10828760928 and osm.org/node/6967044714)?
With route relations for both directions like `route=road` or PTv1 bus routes,you need to set the role `forward` for one-way members. I know that the three relations were not ordered correctly prior to your changes but it does not help if you add to that mess.
Please, stop working on the task "Modified road into Dual Carriageway" and talk with your team to update the instructions. And, please, review all your recent changes and fix the problems.
Thanks and best greetings,
skyper

Hello anilkgba,
you missed to add a `highway=traffic_signal` at the intersection (osm.org/node/10806958605).
Are u-turns allowed at the end of the dual-carriage parts (osm.org/node/7383839966 and osm.org/node/10806938101)?
You need to take a look at all tags and update them appropriate.There are several problems with `turn:lanes` now (osm.org/way/1161998713, osm.org/way/35141489, osm.org/way/1161998709 and osm.org/way/474921853)
Additionally, solid lane markings do not count as physical separation, e.g. these separate links (osm.org/way/1161998716 and osm.org/way/1161998717) are wrong and should be mapped with `turn:lanes` plus `change:lanes`.
Please fix the problems.
Regards skyper

Hello anilkgba,
when splitting roads into parts per direction, you often need to adjust some tags. I doubt that the two one-way parts (osm.org/way/1163336909 and osm.org/way/1163336910) each have a sidewalk on both sides. Please, talk with your team to update the instructions for the task "Modified road into Dual Carriageway" and review all your recent changes belonging to the task. Thanks a lot.
Greetings, skyper

Hi anilkgba,
if you change a two-way street into two one-way street you have to adjust several tags and take care of route relations. I doubt that both one-way parts (osm.org/way/1164325509 and osm.org/way/1164325508) have each bicycle lanes on both sides and the bus routes (osm.org/relation/15339415 and osm.org/relation/15339416) for sure use only use one depending on the direction. Again the way members of the bus routes need to be ordered from first to last. Please, fix the issues and be more careful in the future. Thanks.
Regards skyper

Hallo twill91,
herzlich willkommen bei OSM. Schön, dass Du mithelfen willst die Daten zu verbessern. Zusätzlich zur Verwendung von `ref` anstelle von `fire_hydrant:ref` habe ich die Frage woher Du die Informationen zu den Hydranten hast.
Bitte gebe doch eine Quelle im Änderungssatzkommentar oder als zusätzliches Merkmal `source=` des Änderungssatze an.
Viele Grüße,
skyper

Hallo maxwxyz,
die Mitglieder von Multipolygonrelationen dürfen keine gemeinsamen Kanten haben und mehrere Werte für `building` sollten auch nicht verwendet werden. Insgesamt verstehe ich nicht den Sinn von osm.org/relation/15740311. Das war doch ohne Relation richtig abgebildet.
Viele Grüße,
skyper

Hallo maxwxyz,
wenn Du Trottoirs als eigenständige Objekte einträgst bitte auch die `sidewalk`-Tags der Straße anpassen zu `separate`. Ansonsten sind sie doppelt in den Daten. Auch halte ich `layer=-1` z.B. an diesem Weg (osm.org/way/1164875738) für falsch und `kerb=raised` sollte besser als eigenständige Linie `barrier=kerb` eingetragen werden.
Kannst Du Dir das bitte nochmal anschauen und entsprechend alle Objekte verbessern?
Danke und viele Grüße,
skyper

Ah, trifft wahrscheinlich auch für die anderen MPs zu.

Hallo Georg,
kannst Du Dir bitte nochmal das MP (osm.org/relation/9277450) anschauen. Keine Ahnung warum das im Wiki so schlecht erklärt ist, aber bei MPs dürfen die Mitglieder keine gemeinsame Kanten haben. Im Zweifel nicht die Gebäude verwenden, sondern neue Polygone um die Gebäude einzeichnen.
Viele Grüße,
skyper

Hi,
again, all `roof:shape` values have a capital first letter.
What does `SOURCE_COD` stand for?
Are you sure that the values for `height` are correct? I wonder how you measured them up to 10e-8 meters.
Regards,
skyper

Hi,
again you have deleted a building to add a new one at the same position (osm.org/way/1164235910 ->
osm.org/way/1164236505). Please use "Replace Geometry" instead and some functions to create proper circles and rectified buildings, either in your scripts or JOSM.
Thanks a lot and all the best,
skyper

Ah, osm.org/way/1164235912 was not simplified and osm.org/way/1164235910 again contained duplicated way nodes. Please, fix your scripts.
Best Regards,
skyper