<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p><br /></p>
<div id="replybody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>Hi Anthony,</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="replybody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know I’ve spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find the same errors get reintroduced.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="replybody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn’t possible to stop other editors from making changes in an area.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="replybody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the iD editor which create “orphaned” relations that would not be used in routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn’t trying to undo the changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="replybody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>I’ve created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn’t until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these restrictions perfect, I’d strongly recommend giving that a try.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="replybody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map, and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It’s better to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time doing the fun stuff. :)</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="replybody1">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>Dian</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p id="v1reply-intro">On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:</p>
<div id="v1replybody1">
<div lang="EN-AU" style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="v1v1WordSection1">
<p class="v1v1MsoNormal"><span>Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns, you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it. I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!</span></p>
<p class="v1v1MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="v1v1MsoNormal"> </p>
<div style="mso-element: para-border-div; border: none; border-top: solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding: 3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="v1v1MsoNormal" style="border: none; padding: 0cm;"><strong>From: </strong><a href="mailto:talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer">talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><strong>Sent: </strong>Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM<br /><strong>To: </strong><a href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><strong>Subject: </strong>Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46</p>
</div>
<p class="v1v1MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="v1v1MsoNormal">Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to<br /> talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br /><br />To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br /> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br />or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br /> talk-au-request@openstreetmap.org<br /><br />You can reach the person managing the list at<br /> talk-au-owner@openstreetmap.org<br /><br />When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br />than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."<br /><br /><br />Today's Topics:<br /><br /> 1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,<br /> Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)<br /> 2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol<br /> 178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)<br /> 3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol<br /> 178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)<br /> 4. FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)<br /><br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Message: 1<br />Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000<br />From: Andrew Davidson <theswavu@gmail.com><br />To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br />Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest,<br /> Vol 178, Issue 44)<br />Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c30ff@gmail.com><br />Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed<br /><br />On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:<br /><br />> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know <br />> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing <br />> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge? <br /><br />Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction <br />relation needs to have:<br /><br />1. A way with the role "from"<br />2. A way with the role "to"<br />3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways<br />4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel<br /><br />When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I <br />say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.<br /><br />> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this <br />> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: <br />> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap <br /><br />This changeset deleted this turn restriction:<br /><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961</a><br /><br />which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it <br />only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to <br />delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:<br /><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389</a><br /><br />which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.<br /><br />> <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373</a>> and Changeset: <br />> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap <br /><br />This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:<br /><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446</a><br /><br />You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was <br />deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of <br />cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I <br />simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277</a><br /><br />You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any <br />no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a <br />slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no <br />u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that <br />was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format.<br /><br />> <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.59301" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.59301</a>> <br />> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my <br />> time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to <br />> come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask <br />> DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be <br />> banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out <br />> vandalism!<br /><br />I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the <br />to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a <br />broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing.<br /><br />A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn <br />restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of <br />months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly <br />because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you <br />create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset <br />comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they <br />could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that <br />in iD.<br /><br />My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost <br />all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper <br />reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to <br />have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand <br />what someone was trying to map before I fix it.<br /><br /><br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />Message: 2<br />Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:25:31 +1000<br />From: Andrew Davidson <theswavu@gmail.com><br />To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br />Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au<br /> Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)<br />Message-ID:<br /> <CACXR7K1Ujx2WQZF5nsGxrD+6CRp-Upx7MPaSjsvLOGg5de9xEA@mail.gmail.com><br />Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br /><br />On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, <theswavu@gmail.com> wrote:<br /><br />><br />> <a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389</a><br />><br />><br />> Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is:<br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088</a><br />-------------- next part --------------<br />An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br />URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/418ba850/attachment-0001.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/418ba850/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />Message: 3<br />Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:53:14 +1000<br />From: "Phil Wyatt" <phil@wyatt-family.com><br />To: "'Andrew Davidson'" <theswavu@gmail.com>,<br /> <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br />Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au<br /> Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)<br />Message-ID: <000d01d85c45$d472c5e0$7d5851a0$@wyatt-family.com><br />Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br /><br />Many thanks for the detailed explanation<br /><br />-----Original Message-----<br />From: Andrew Davidson <theswavu@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM<br />To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br />Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)<br /><br />On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:<br /><br />> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know <br />> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing <br />> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?<br /><br />Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction relation needs to have:<br /><br />1. A way with the role "from"<br />2. A way with the role "to"<br />3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways 4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel<br /><br />When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.<br /><br />> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this <br />> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:<br />> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap<br /><br />This changeset deleted this turn restriction:<br /><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961</a><br /><br />which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:<br /><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389</a><br /><br />which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.<br /><br />> <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373</a>> and Changeset: <br />> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap<br /><br />This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:<br /><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170</a><br /><a href="https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446</a><br /><br />You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277</a><br /><br />You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format.<br /><br />> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/13<br />> 8.59301> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been <br />> wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this <br />> shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I <br />> would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and <br />> see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit <br />> policy or straight out vandalism!<br /><br />I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing.<br /><br />A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that in iD.<br /><br />My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand what someone was trying to map before I fix it.<br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />Talk-au mailing list<br />Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />Message: 4<br />Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:00:38 +1000<br />From: "Phil Wyatt" <phil@wyatt-family.com><br />To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br />Subject: [talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44<br />Message-ID: <001301d85c46$dc381a40$94a84ec0$@wyatt-family.com><br />Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />From: Phil Wyatt <phil@wyatt-family.com> <br />Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM<br />To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <panozz@outlook.com><br />Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44<br /><br /> <br /><br />Hi Anthony,<br /><br /> <br /><br />There are multiple tools out there for finding 'errors' in OSM data and many<br />people use them to keep the OSM data up to date. You might also like to<br />share the OSM software that you are using on your vehicle GPS as it may turn<br />out that it doesn't handle relations or routing of some situations.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Cheers - Phil<br /><br /> <br /><br />From: Anthony Panozzo <panozz@outlook.com <<a href="mailto:panozz@outlook.com" rel="noreferrer">mailto:panozz@outlook.com</a>> > <br />Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM<br />To: Phil Wyatt <phil@wyatt-family.com <<a href="mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com" rel="noreferrer">mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com</a>> ><br />Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44<br /><br /> <br /><br />The biggest issue I have with this account is that they don't find routing<br />errors on their own, this person stalks other peoples edits and "correcs"<br />them using knowledge as their source, I find these routing errors 100%<br />myself in real world situations, I have been editing and using OSM on my car<br />gps for many years, this user edits other users edits based on no knowledge<br />of the intersection at all, having a user like this should put anyone off<br />making any routing edits when this person randomly edits 10 different<br />intersections in 10 minutes and says they have knowledge.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />From: Phil Wyatt <<a href="mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com" rel="noreferrer">mailto:phil@wyatt-family.com</a>> <br />Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM<br />To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <<a href="mailto:panozz@outlook.com" rel="noreferrer">mailto:panozz@outlook.com</a>> ;<br />talk-au@openstreetmap.org <<a href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer">mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>> <br />Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44<br /><br /> <br /><br />Hi Anthony (slice0),<br /><br /> <br /><br />Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell out<br />in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is incorrect.<br />That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you<br />restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG.<br /><br /> <br /><br />PS Swavu is not a bot.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Cheers - Phil (tastrax)<br /><br /> <br /><br />From: Anthony Panozzo <panozz@outlook.com <<a href="mailto:panozz@outlook.com" rel="noreferrer">mailto:panozz@outlook.com</a>> > <br />Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM<br />To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <<a href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer">mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>> <br />Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44<br /><br /> <br /><br />User TheSwavu<br /><br />This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more<br />than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction<br />this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the notes,<br />let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it<br />breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | OpenStreetMap<br /><<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373</a>> and Changeset:<br />120198383 | OpenStreetMap<br /><https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930<br />1> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my<br />time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to<br />come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask DWG<br />to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned from<br />any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism! <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />-------------- next part --------------<br />An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br />URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d0f732e2/attachment.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d0f732e2/attachment.htm</a>><br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />Subject: Digest Footer<br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />Talk-au mailing list<br />Talk-au@openstreetmap.org<br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br /><br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46<br />****************************************</p>
<p class="v1v1MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="v1pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace;">_______________________________________________<br />Talk-au mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>