[talk-au] Mapping each lane as a new way

[Ewen Hill]

Nemanja,
    Hi, have those you mentioned responded and how did you contact them?
Was it via changeset comments or via an OSM message?

   It's probably best you contact *data**[image: ,
“ат”]**openstreetmap**[image:
“ԁοт”]**org *(see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group)
and explain the situation and this group may place a temporary block on
them until they have read a message from them..

   I am not a huge fan of naming individuals here unless it is blatant and
obvious vandalism

Ewen

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 07:32, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> My team has recognized that there are a couple of users who are repeatedly
> making questionable modeling choices.
>
> We’ve contacted them, and while some specific issues were fixed, new ones
> kept appearing. We wanted to reach out and to hear your opinions on this
> matter.
>
>
>
> User *Supt_of_Printing
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Supt_of_Printing>*
>
> This user is not using existing ways but he adds a new way on top of the
> existing one, making a lot of duplicates. The example can be:
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819833424
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819833424>*
>
> There is a way that is classified as track, but just over the existing one
> he added a new unclassified road.
>
>
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746933130
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746933130>*
>
> The other type of issue that we recognized is roundabout modeling.
>
> You can see in the provided example that way goes as a part of the
> roundabout. Also, it is noticeable that half of the roundabout has a
> [oneway] tag, but the other doesn’t.
>
>
>
> Users *Map_baker <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Map_baker>* and *Supt_of_Printing
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Supt_of_Printing>*
>
> They have remodeled a couple of junctions so each lane is one way, like
> here:
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746563860/history
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746563860/history>*
>
>
>
> What’s happening with this remodeling:
>
>    - Destination relations are broken;
>    - Bus routes are not connected properly;
>    - For navigation purposes additional turn restrictions would be needed
>    to avoid unpleasant turn suggestions;
>    - In some cases, roads cross each other without an intersection point;
>    - It is impossible to apply correct lane information.
>
>
>
> Another example of remodeling:
>
> *https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/789300431
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/789300431>*
>
> There are no physical barriers, so it should be modeled as a single way,
> but the actual osm data is currently divided based on lane information.
>
> Although we recognize that there are different approaches to modeling
> junctions, these users are creating a lot of issues by remodeling in this
> way.
>
> Please can you advise what to do now since I believe that all osm users
> need to spend a significant amount of time checking all their previous
> edits?
>
> Users *Map_baker <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Map_baker>* and *travaudat
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/travaudat>*
>
> They are going across Australia and converting multiple way roundabouts
> into one. We had a discussion on Talk-AU about that, where I have tried to
> explain why it is not okay to do (since attributes may change within the
> roundabout), but I can see that practice has continued.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Nemanja
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20201027/9d048598/attachment-0001.htm>