[talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[Sebastian Azagra Flores]

Tony

I don’t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to verify other edits. 

OSM data relies on being verifiable. 
You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren’t explicitly permitted without signage. 
Your approach doesn’t  follow the on the ground rule, as you insist on disputing map updates  that are based what’s on the ground or lack there of. 
Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion. 

It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn’t be verified for accuracy? 
When I’m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is apparent that bike are not permitted. 




regards,

Sebastian 

> On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
> Hi Sebastian and list
> 
> I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief that a short section of bike route through park should be cycleway. Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows.
> 
> Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
> From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn’t appear to be any signage permitting bicycles on said road.
> Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle = dismount might be the most appropriate.
> 
> Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated 14,731 bicycle paths changed to bicycle=no  in 636 changesets. He no longer adds bicycle=no but still changes paths to footways.
> 
> Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to footpaths and removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not being explicit signage that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9 such edits in the last 4 days.
> 
> The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to check, the path might or might not be better described as a footway. I do not have the time to individually visit each of Sebastian's edits. I have had enough.
> 
> So mapping community, its your choice, do nothing and Sebastian will continue to change cycleways and shared paths into footways OR let Sebastian and the DWG know that this retagging is not acceptable to the community. Please let them both know in clear and unambiguous terms what you think, don't expect others to speak for you.
> 
> Thanks
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> Sun, 27 Mar 2022 Quoting forster at ozonline.com.au:
> 
>> Hi Sebastian and list,
>> 
>> 2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943
>> 
>> I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at
>> Changeset: 118627943
>> 
>> I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part
>> appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, the
>> bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the footpath
>> 
>> The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23
>> show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to
>> be in the circle before it faded.
>> 
>> Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.
>> 
>> 18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks Reserve
>> 
>> 18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
>> 51 shows this sign more clearly
>> 
>> Tony