OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
87092295

Please check the connections
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87092295

87092222

This is not correct. It is not considered R1's exit.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87092222

87089499

Please don't remove and merge island-separated road
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87089499

87065317

This is a live database. Please don't commit vandalism.

87031393

Please use `tunnel:name=` for this/.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87031393

86935441

This one should be a `highway=pedestrian`. Notice the lowered kerb. The bollards should be removable.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86935441

86932879

This is R2's exit from Lei Yue Mun Rd
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86932879

86904136

I suggest `=unclassified` to factor in Hornsey Rd.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86904136

86879536

Who do you think added those remarks? I explained several times on this. Why don't you yourself go and take everything into account.

86879536

Keep on repeating your own piece of dogma without looking at it, you won't go anywhere with this behavior

86883892

Not to mention to use descriptive changeset upload comments

86883892

Please keep your changesets local and relevant, and consult the local community before making signficiant changes.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86883892

86883976

I don't see why you keep doing this despite previous discussions changeset/86886372
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86883976

86883421

changeset/86886317
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86883421

86883421

Again, please don't make streets "_link" for the sake of it.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86883421

86883492

This is inconsistent, even after multiple discussions
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86883492

86878500

Please don't create an entire `=trunk_link` when there is none.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86878500

86879536

Are you going to reply or what?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86879536

86833215

The `=primary_link`s are correct as they were.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86833215

86782125

Think about how they will be implemented as individual lines, without turning restrictions in place, as done historically before.