Hey kkrish11,

Simply removing the layer tag does not resolve the tagging issue here. We can see the way goes into a building and can even refer to street level imagery.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=215810520051157&focus=photo

From here, we can make proper changes to the way. I would suggest splitting it where it intersects with the building, and adding covered=yes to the segment which is underneath the building.
You can then remove layer=-1 from this and all the adjacent segments.

Please do not make changes to incorrect tags when it does not resolve the tagging issue. This may be considered as mapping for the validator (there's still an issue, but it will no longer show up in validators.)

This changeset has been reverted here
changeset/129204376

Regards,

Daniel

Hey kkrish11,

Could you explain your changes, please? It looks like you created a redundant split in a way (no tag changes); it should route just fine as it was, besides the OSM model does not prohibit such loops.

Your changes
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=129198493

Regards,

Daniel

@Mateusz Looks to be accidentally tagged while mapping
way/1101352021

V1 was created by Heinz_V, who split the administrative boundaries in what are supposedly the Tehsils, without further specifying any relations on, or deleting, the newly created ways
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehsil )
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=73124217

Could you remove it and contact Heinz_V, please?
(Sidenote: iD will give a blocking warning when trying to save an empty way.)
Iirc India has opened up some of its data so it's likely the data can be filled in / replaced properly.

It's usually indicated with "survey" if it's recent.

I've re-added the values here
changeset/128659366

Hey shashp,

way/133257578/history
Based on Mapillary (2021), the vehicle restrictions you added do not seem to be explicitly signed.

Did you survey this location in person? If so, were they explicitly signed nearby?

Do these restrictions apply in both directions?

Do they apply only to the bridge or to more parts of the road?

Fyi, the value "no" is default for "motor_vehicle" on cycleways and similarly "yes" for residential.
Removed default, redundant values here
changeset/128611275
( https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=128611275 )
changeset/128611421
( https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=128611421 )

Learn more about Access
access=*

Your changes
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=125720387

Regards,

Daniel

Hey David,

Is this explicitly signed?

What about the bridge going the other way? Have you been able to survey it?
way/396524128

Are there any "Must Exit" signs or similar before this part of the highway which tell cyclists to use the sidepath?

*and added gate
forgot to upload changes in between.

Fyi there's an existing bicycle parking, so be sure to adjust it to the current situation as needed.

Thanks for the pointer. I've replied to Anne's original changeset. It does look like they were duplicates.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=122912086

Hey Anne,

"Trail marker 2" and "Trail marker 3" look like descriptive names. The reference number may be tagged with "ref" instead if it is explicitly signed.
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Of course it's possible the names were only meant as notes for yourself so you wouldn't miss any route markers. In that case you can remove them.

They have since been merged with other route markers you created.
node/9711946808
node/9711946807

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Victor,

"Trail marker 2" and "Trail marker 3" look like descriptive names. The reference number may be tagged with "ref" instead if it is explicitly signed.
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Regards,

Daniel

node/10122780329
This is signed as an emergency bay. I would suggest tagging it as such.
highway=emergency_bay

There's also one on the other side a bit to the left / west.

Ah, I had spotted this sign earlier, but now I know why the entrance way isn't marked as oneway. There's a service way going off from it to a school on the left, which means the first part of it is not a oneway.

(I can understand it if this lot is confusing.)

Hey Kevin,

This service way is signed as no right-turn, but it is also marked as "No Entry" with a one-sided solid line [2] and no-straight-on signs. This means neither directions of Main Street can enter this service way, but vehicles can leave from this service way onto main street. This indicates it is a one-way.

[1] (it is a dashed line in this case..)

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=459420645152738&focus=photo

The entry to the car park isn't explicitly signed as one-way, there are only two signs with arrows indicating where the car park is.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=300594074883921&focus=photo

However, if we look at the aerial imagery, we can vaguely see the end of the entrance service way (west or left side of the church) being marked as "No Entry" as well, meaning also the entrance is a one-way.

This means no turn restrictions should have to be applied at the entrance or exit of the car park, only the service way should be finished[2] and the oneway tag applied on the segments either side of the church.

[2] For ease, we can right click and reverse the service way in its entirety, so that when we apply the oneway tag it'll point in the right direction straight away.

At the back of the church, there are two service ways seperated by a pedestrian island. Only one of them appears to have a one-way arrow pointing towards the exit, the other done does not seem to have any markings and should therefore be left without oneway tag.

I may be able to revert this changeset for you if you'd like. This makes it easier to continue editing.

Regards,

Daniel

I suppose this is caused by coordinate rounding actually.

The way needs to be explicitly signed as private. Could you point out where this is indicated, please?

None of these do so by themselves
- school (or any landuse)
- service way (or any way)
- oneway (oneway arrow, no straight on sign, no entry or semi-/solid line marking)
- gate (open or closed)

The car park itself is explicitly signed as public.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=265554538585156&focus=photo

Your changes
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=128120474

way/935938232
Are you sure this way segment has a concrete surface? Based on the available imagery it's all asphalt.

Your fellow TomTom editors indicated they did not remove the nodes they touched, in order to keep other contributor's history. Therefore I'll repeat my reply to them here.

"Keep the history" usually refers to the object as a whole.
- If you change something to an object, it can be retrieved easily as can be seen above.
- If you were to remove the whole building and create a new one, the old object's history would not be displayed in the new object's history.
- In that case, I can only retrieve the old object's history by looking at your changeset. I'd have to be aware of your changeset in the first place.

"Keep the history" usually refers to the object as a whole.
- If you change something to an object, it can be retrieved easily as can be seen above.
- If you were to remove the whole building and create a new one, the old object's history would not be displayed in the new object's history.
- In that case, I can only retrieve the old object's history by looking at your changeset. I'd have to be aware of your changeset in the first place.

"Keep the history" usually refers to the object as a whole.
- If you change something to an object, it can be retrieved easily as can be seen above.
- If you were to remove the whole building and create a new one, the old object's history would not be displayed in the new object's history.
- In that case, I can only retrieve the old object's history by looking at your changeset. I'd have to be aware of your changeset in the first place.