[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 23 02:27:37 UTC 2021

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210923/220fa891/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list