[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

forster at ozonline.com.au forster at ozonline.com.au
Fri Oct 1 06:34:13 UTC 2021

This matter has been referred to the DWG

> Hey all,
> Sorry to be a tattle-tale, but this user's behaviour is continuing,
> despite increasing demands on them to engage.
> https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886
> In the most recent conversation, they have converted a powerline way
> into a footpath in error.
> Not sure what the appropriate next steps would be?
> On 2021-09-23 12:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 22:02, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:
>>> I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all
>>> involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It
>>> appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey.
>>> The largest category is changes of paths, (typically not those beside
>>> roads, not what are generally termed footpaths in Australian English)
>>> from dual use to bicycle=no on the logic that all paths are footpaths
>>> unless otherwise signed under Victorian law.
>>> This argument is questionable at best, these changes are not in "road
>>> related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by
>>> the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule.
>>> Another category of changes is strange instances of bicycle=no. For
>>> example you could ride a horse into the Eastern Sewage Plant but not a
>>> bicycle. You can drive a car or walk into Wilson Botanic Gardens but
>>> not enter on a bike. You can enter the Quarter Circuit residential
>>> subdivision by any mode of transport except bicycle. You can travel
>>> Browns Lane Aspendale by any mode of transport except a bicycle.
>>> A third category is removal of bicycle=designated, it would require a
>>> site visit to establish whether there was signage to designate cycle
>>> use and whether this tag should remain.
>>> A fourth is changes of narrow lanes servicing a number of houses to
>>> service=driveway despite the wiki indicating that "A driveway is a
>>> minor service road leading to a specific property"
>>> They have not edited for the past 3 days. They have had changeset
>>> comments on 19 changesets from 10 different commenters but replied to
>>> only 3 and accepted that they were in error in 0.
>>> There are 636 changesets by this person with many ways retagged. An
>>> estimated 5000 ways have been retagged. An enormous amount of work if
>>> each way was to be properly assessed.
>>> Do I have community support for the proposal that they be invited to
>>> respond in a constructive way to all the changeset comments and if
>>> they do not respond in a timely matter the community should consider
>>> mass reversion of all changesets? Is this a matter that can be managed
>>> effectively through talk-au or should the DWG be involved?
>>> I deeply regret suggesting that all of a users work might be deleted
>>> but the amount of work to check each way is prohibitive. If any one
>>> can devise an automated process to protect the few constructive edits,
>>> that would be great.
>> The shared driveway point was raised by Tom on talk-au today, and   
>> it seems like the driveway=pipestem tag could be used in these   
>> cases so mark it as a shared driveway.
>> Regarding the other changes, I agree with your points, hopefully   
>> the mapper can respond to their changeset comments and hopefully   
>> work this out though discourse. Failing that, having good changes   
>> caught up in reversions is never good, but I understand it's a lot   
>> of effort otherwise, wish the tooling handled this better.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> _____________________________________________________
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning

More information about the Talk-au mailing list