<div dir="auto">Hello Chris.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is one reason why I disagree with people who delete cycleways and replace with a generic cycleway=track on the road. The data on dropped kerbs, inaccessible barriers, and dismount sections are lost. The late Heavy Metal Handcyclist  <a href="https://twitter.com/CrippledCyclist">https://twitter.com/CrippledCyclist</a> used to post on Twitter on how they would get councils to remove such barriers (their cycle was their mobility aid). </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">From my point of view, having my pannier bags full of shopping or stuff for my holiday means I can't just dismount and push my bike over a raised kerb, and getting round narrow gaps in barriers is impossible. Similarly, people tagging non-cyclable ways as bicycle=yes makes journey planning problematic.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jon</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, 12:51 Chris Hodges, <<a href="mailto:chris@c-hodges.co.uk">chris@c-hodges.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div>
    <p>The editor in this case is clearly wrong, and this is why we have
      the "dismount" tag, which renderers are free to use/stuff up as
      they see fit.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>But the main problem here isn't really the user.  It's the
      planners who designate cycle routes that can't be cycled.  Not all
      cyclists can dismount and push.  Reading up on accessible cycling
      recently has been eye-opening<br>
    </p>
    <div>On 19/04/2022 11:12, Jon Pennycook via
      Talk-GB wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="auto">
        <div>> But I have noticed that a small number of people on
          OSM don't seem to like cycle infra (or maybe they don't
          understand it).</div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">And some people like to put bicycle=yes on
          things that are convenient for them to cycle on, even when
          they are clearly private or have Cyclists Dismount signs. </div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">For example, footways with Cyclists Dismount
          signs, formerly tagged bicycle=dismount, and members of two
          LCNs and an NCN:-</div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">> <span>Hi
            the signs are present, but it is a route for cyclists, by
            customising the drop down you exclude the section from 3rd
            party systems that use the data. Hence changed to Yes for
            cycles, as it is regardless of whether ridden or pushed.</span><br>
          <br>
          <div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
            <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 18 Apr 2022, 07:28
              Jon Pennycook, <<a href="mailto:jpennycook@bcs.org.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jpennycook@bcs.org.uk</a>>
              wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div dir="ltr">Morning.
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>I think those are two different people -
                  Nathan_A_RF now tends to specialise in edits around
                  Southampton (I think they used some controversial
                  sources for a wider area until last Autumn, according
                  to their Block page), and AR_Mapper specialises in
                  Bracknell and New York.</div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>But I have noticed that a small number of people on
                  OSM don't seem to like cycle infra (or maybe they
                  don't understand it).</div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>Jon</div>
              </div>
              <br>
              <div class="gmail_quote">
                <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at
                  05:41, Robert Skedgell <<a href="mailto:rob@hubris.org.uk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rob@hubris.org.uk</a>>
                  wrote:<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The same user added
                  an entirely spurious bicycle=no to a bus gate in <br>
                  Woodham Ferrers. This made cycle routers take the
                  scenic route and <br>
                  turned 300m of shared footway along Ferrers Road into
                  a dead end. There <br>
                  was no source for the "corrections" in this edit. How
                  odd that cycle <br>
                  infra seems to be the common feature in their
                  problematic edits...<br>
                  <br>
                  <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93778124" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93778124</a><br>
                  <br>
                  On 17/04/2022 18:51, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB wrote:<br>
                  > Thanks Phil - that's very helpful.<br>
                  > <br>
                  > I don't understand what caused them to do this. 
                  It turns out they are <br>
                  > not new - they just have a low edit count and
                  that I've spoken to them <br>
                  > before about cycleways in Bracknell:-<br>
                  > <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92601276" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92601276</a>
                  <br>
                  > <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92601276" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92601276</a>><br>
                  > <br>
                  > Jon<br>
                  > <br>
                  > On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 18:47, Philip Barnes <<a href="mailto:phil@trigpoint.me.uk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">phil@trigpoint.me.uk</a>
                  <br>
                  > <mailto:<a href="mailto:phil@trigpoint.me.uk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">phil@trigpoint.me.uk</a>>>
                  wrote:<br>
                  > <br>
                  >     I believe I have reverted<br>
                  >     it, <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119825773" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119825773</a><br>
                  >     <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119825773" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119825773</a>><br>
                  > <br>
                  >     Phil (trigpoint)<br>
                  > <br>
                  >     On Sun, 2022-04-17 at 18:10 +0100, Jon
                  Pennycook via Talk-GB wrote:<br>
                  >      > Hello.<br>
                  >      ><br>
                  >      > A relatively new mapper just deleted a
                  whole load of cycleways in<br>
                  >      > Bracknell that were correctly mapped in<br>
                  >      > <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119816211" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119816211</a><br>
                  >     <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119816211" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119816211</a>><br>
                  >      > I wasn't able to use <a href="http://revert.osmz.ru/" rel="noreferrer
                    noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://revert.osmz.ru/</a><br>
                  >     <<a href="http://revert.osmz.ru/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://revert.osmz.ru/</a>>
                  to revert the change:-<br>
                  >      > Status: too big<br>
                  >      > Error: Would not revert 644 changes<br>
                  >      ><br>
                  >      > Could someone assist with the
                  reversion, please?  Or should I contact<br>
                  >      > the DWG for assistance?<br>
                  >      ><br>
                  >      > Jon Pennycook<br>
                  >      >
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  >      > Talk-GB mailing list<br>
                  >      > <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
                  <mailto:<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
                  >      > <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
                  >     <<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>><br>
                  > <br>
                  > <br>
                  >   
                   _______________________________________________<br>
                  >     Talk-GB mailing list<br>
                  >     <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
                  <mailto:<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
                  >     <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
                  >     <<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>><br>
                  > <br>
                  > <br>
                  > _______________________________________________<br>
                  > Talk-GB mailing list<br>
                  > <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
                  > <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  Talk-GB mailing list<br>
                  <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
                  <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset></fieldset>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </div>

</blockquote></div>