I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160124501

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462164

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462111

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160461888

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

This changeset has been fully reverted in changeset: 160304487

I have reverted changes you have made to road classification in this changeset: osm.org/changeset/160255103

Please do not change classification of the roads without further discussion with community. I urge you to establish contact with community as soon as possible, to clear many things up, in order to prevent further escalation.

I have reverted changes you have made to road classification in this changeset: osm.org/changeset/160255030

Please do not change classification of the roads without further discussion with community. I urge you to establish contact with community as soon as possible, to clear many things up, in order to prevent further escalation.

upc92, maybe before "loading other things" you should first take time and answer MaliMrav questions.

While I'm here I would also like to ask you about names you added on parks.

Here osm.org/way/162684518#map=19/44.803567/20.375706 you have added name "Park Blok 62", meawhile on this one osm.org/way/237141498 you have added "Block 63 park".

Why is one on Serbia and other one, I guess on English? Do they even have names, as in did you confirm it on the ground?

Hi upc92,

First of all, would you be so kind to read the following page osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments so you have idea what should be written in changeset comment field, next time you upload edits to OSM.

I have question about couple of things in this changeset, so I will list couple of those:
- Why did you delete name:sr=Бечејска from this street osm.org/way/75682210
- Why did you add name:en=Becej St on the same street? Is there consensus within Serbian OSM community to translate each street name to English?
- Why did you add layer=-1 to this building, is it underground? osm.org/way/1279702031
- Why did you delete this POI osm.org/node/927728188 which had fixme tag on it, where someone requested check whether POI still exists or not. I sure hope you did survey and didn't blindly delete it.

PS You should really get in touch with community. By the way, I wrote you a private message like 12 days ago, and still got no answer.

Best regards,
soliMM

Hi Alex202210,

I've already sent you a message but got no answer, so I'll repeat my question. Do you have official source or ground truth (picture of the sign) where those two villages are named like this? Have they been renamed recently, and I’m not aware of the changes?

The villages in question are:
osm.org/node/3099677506
osm.org/node/8043846372

It would be great if you could provide more info on changes made in this changeset.

Best regards

Hi foolyaar,

I have a couple of questions about your edits in this changeset, and it would great if you could provide some insight about those.

First, you have deleted a tertiary road near your campus, here below you can find the links to deleted ways:
osm.org/way/28464067
osm.org/way/28464060
osm.org/way/28464059
osm.org/way/875118831

Now due to your deletion of the way, that caused plenty of issues with other roads that were connecting to it. Was this an accidental deletion, or this road doesn't exist anymore in reality, what is the case here?

Additionally, in vicinity of deleted tertiary road, you have deleted a node that was part of boundary
osm.org/node/12151237013
which resulted in broken boundary relations and created more issues.

I have also seen that in some of your other changesets you deleted a lot more service roads around campus, some landuse and so on. Is this intended and what is the reasoning for deleting those?

Could you please provide additional information about your edits?

Best regards,
soliMM

Pozdrav,

Hvala na sugestiji, međutim nema potrebe jer sam dobro upoznat sa smjernicama za dodavanje adresa u Srbiji pošto sam do sad dodao nekoliko desetina hiljada istih.

Naravno da sam primjetio i ovo, ali ostavljeno je s namjerom ovako kako jeste iz nekoliko razloga.

Prvo, ne znam da li je ovo jedan objekat kao što je ucrtano na OSM-u ili su zapravo dva objekta koja imaju zajednički zid. Ukoliko je ovo slučaj onda ona varijanta da se nodovi zakače sa spoljni way od zgrade pada u vodu, jer bi kućni brojevi trebali da budu stavljeni na oba objekta pojedinačno.
Inače na snimcima može da se vidi veoma mala promjena u boji krova, negdje na sredini. Što može da nagovijesti da je su u pitanju dva objekta, mada i ne mora da znači. Ne možemo da znamo bez provjere na terenu.

Drugo, postoji node od pošte na sredini objekta kojoj je postavljen tag BB (bez broja). Da li možda neki od ovih brojeva ustvari pripada samoj pošti?

Treće, ako bi se stavljala adresa na spoljni way onda bi najlogičnije bilo da se stave tamo gdje je glavni ulaz u taj objekat. Pošto ne mogu sa sigurnošću da kažem sa koje strane se prilazi ovoj zgradi ostavio sam ovako. Na snimcima je djelovalo kao da im se pristupa sa lijeve strane pa bi nodovi sa adresama mogli da se stave na tu stranu (ako je ovo jedan objekat, a ne dva).

P.S. Ne znam da li si primjetio da addr:housenumber=бб na nodu od pošte nije ispravan, jer ako je slučaj da ovaj objekat pošte zaista nema kućni broj onda bi trebalo da se taguje na sledeći način nohousenumber=yes. Isto tako ako se ne varam, slovne oznake koje idu uz kućni broj stavljamo na latinici, a ne na ćirilici, zar ne?

U iščekivanju odgovora,
Miloš

Hi gurglypipe,

Thank you for correcting this. I would like to note that I didn't remove access=no tag but rather motorcar=no. The reasoning for that was judging by satellite imagery and base map (OS OpenMap Local (October 2022)), that specific road didn't seem like private road. Also, there are at least three buildings/properties where vehicles are present and that can be seen on aerial imagery, due to that forbidding access for all motorcars seemed inappropriate to me. Now that you have added access=private, that seems more logical.

Once again thank you for the heads up, I'll be more careful in the future.

Best regards,
soliMM

Hi,

I would also like to point out that according to this Mapillary photo:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.783913888889&lng=-0.67175&z=17&pKey=427118032307543&focus=photo&x=0.4873636590120501&y=0.4387928926573414&zoom=0

this is indeed pedestrian zone, with specific access restrictions that can be seen clearly on the sign.

Correct changeset comment: "Added house numbers in Blato"

Hello,

I'm a user mainly contributing to Montenegro and Serbia on OSM. While doing so, I have encountered some changes you have made in Podgorica. I would like to raise your attention that certain ways you have added are completely incorrectly tagged.

The ways in question are:
WAY: 1185210232
WAY: 1185225835
WAY: 1185221324
WAY: 1185225836

You have tagged those ways as primary_links and residential highways, which is completely false because those are footways. It is visible in the imagery so it must've been an honest overlook from your side but please try to not repeat errors like that. I will fix this momentarily.

Best regards
Milos

I just checked the changes you have made, since you requested a review, everything seems alright.