[talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Anthony Panozzo
panozz at outlook.com
Sat Apr 30 11:58:22 UTC 2022
I didn’t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you from doing so in the future, it’s against OSM au-talk policy
From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervlogs at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:panozz at outlook.com>; OSM Australian Talk List<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
"TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and that is obvious given the single member
"have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has been discussed ad nauseam
"a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what we are saying or why you are incorrect
So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it.
Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first adding it.
P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted to talk-au.
Cheers,
Luke
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo <panozz at outlook.com<mailto:panozz at outlook.com>> wrote:
Luke,
TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to, it wasn’t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first place? OMG it’s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im saying.
From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervlogs at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick<mailto:graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:panozz at outlook.com>; talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples
Version #2
fixed intersection routing
Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106
Tags
restriction no_u_turn
type restriction
Members
1 member
Node 6357628400 as via
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart <suburbansilvervlogs at gmail.com<mailto:suburbansilvervlogs at gmail.com>> wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list.
iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you commented on was broken by you within a day of you adding it (aka, it lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case.
OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the case of these edits.
There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and devices, not a single router or renderer.
Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which apparently has 69 turn restriction relations: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect
I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone.
Cheers,
Luke
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com<mailto:graemefitz1 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Anthony
Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area: https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=-33.87613&lon=151.17154 (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches" reports.
These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider that what is shown is OK.
Thanks
Graeme
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo <panozz at outlook.com<mailto:panozz at outlook.com>> wrote:
Diaz, i’m sorry I can’t sympathise with these excuses “it’s not me it the validator” the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine routing all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the back because it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and deserves no credit for simply saying the validator told me so, it’s basically bot editing using that excuse, I will be watching all edits this guy makes from now on and will be reporting every single edit he makes that breaks routing to the DWG and by the report button itself on the user page, then he can explain himself there
From: talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org> <talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> <talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson <me at diacritic.xyz<mailto:me at diacritic.xyz>>
To: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e33dd at diacritic.xyz<mailto:06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e33dd at diacritic.xyz>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Hi Anthony,
I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find
the same errors get reintroduced.
I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to
stop other editors from making changes in an area.
In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.
I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.
Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map,
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time
doing the fun stuff. :)
Dian
On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns,
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it.
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!
From: talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
4. FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com<mailto:theswavu at gmail.com>>
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c30ff at gmail.com<mailto:9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c30ff at gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?
Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:
1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel
When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.
> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap
This changeset deleted this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961
which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389
which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap
This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446
You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was
deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of
cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I
simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277
You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any
no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a
slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no
u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that
was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.59301>
> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my
> time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot
> to
> come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask
> DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be
> banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out
> vandalism!
I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the
to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a
broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing.
A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn
restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of
months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly
because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you
create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset
comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they
could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that
in iD.
My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost
all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper
reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to
have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand
what someone was trying to map before I fix it.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:25:31 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com<mailto:theswavu at gmail.com>>
To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au
Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID:
<CACXR7K1Ujx2WQZF5nsGxrD+6CRp-Upx7MPaSjsvLOGg5de9xEA at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CACXR7K1Ujx2WQZF5nsGxrD%2B6CRp-Upx7MPaSjsvLOGg5de9xEA at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, <theswavu at gmail.com<mailto:theswavu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389
>
>
> Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/418ba850/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:53:14 +1000
From: "Phil Wyatt" <phil at wyatt-family.com<mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com>>
To: "'Andrew Davidson'" <theswavu at gmail.com<mailto:theswavu at gmail.com>>,
<talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au
Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <000d01d85c45$d472c5e0$7d5851a0$@wyatt-family.com<http://wyatt-family.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Many thanks for the detailed explanation
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com<mailto:theswavu at gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44)
On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?
Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:
1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways 4.
The members must connect in a way that you can travel
When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.
> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap
This changeset deleted this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961
which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389
which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap
This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446
You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was
deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of
cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I
simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277
You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any
no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a
slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no
u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that
was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/13
> 8.59301> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been
> wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this
> shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I
> would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and
> see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit
> policy or straight out vandalism!
I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the
to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a
broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing.
A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn
restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of
months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly
because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you
create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset
comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they
could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that
in iD.
My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost
all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper
reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to
have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand
what someone was trying to map before I fix it.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:00:38 +1000
From: "Phil Wyatt" <phil at wyatt-family.com<mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com>>
To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: [talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
Message-ID: <001301d85c46$dc381a40$94a84ec0$@wyatt-family.com<http://wyatt-family.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com<mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com>>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <panozz at outlook.com<mailto:panozz at outlook.com>>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
Hi Anthony,
There are multiple tools out there for finding 'errors' in OSM data and
many
people use them to keep the OSM data up to date. You might also like to
share the OSM software that you are using on your vehicle GPS as it may
turn
out that it doesn't handle relations or routing of some situations.
Cheers - Phil
From: Anthony Panozzo <panozz at outlook.com<mailto:panozz at outlook.com> <mailto:panozz at outlook.com> >
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM
To: Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com<mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com> >
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
The biggest issue I have with this account is that they don't find
routing
errors on their own, this person stalks other peoples edits and
"correcs"
them using knowledge as their source, I find these routing errors 100%
myself in real world situations, I have been editing and using OSM on my
car
gps for many years, this user edits other users edits based on no
knowledge
of the intersection at all, having a user like this should put anyone
off
making any routing edits when this person randomly edits 10 different
intersections in 10 minutes and says they have knowledge.
From: Phil Wyatt <mailto:phil at wyatt-family.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <mailto:panozz at outlook.com> ;
talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
Hi Anthony (slice0),
Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell
out
in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is
incorrect.
That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you
restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG.
PS Swavu is not a bot.
Cheers - Phil (tastrax)
From: Anthony Panozzo <panozz at outlook.com<mailto:panozz at outlook.com> <mailto:panozz at outlook.com> >
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM
To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org> <mailto:talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
User TheSwavu
This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
more
than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
correction
this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the
notes,
let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it
breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 |
OpenStreetMap
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
120198383 | OpenStreetMap
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930
1> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting
my
time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to
come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask
DWG
to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned
from
any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d0f732e2/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
------------------------------
End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/fa430fd0/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
------------------------------
End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d16a3caf/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4BDFEAA66B0849EAB3BD22E2119E4B36.png
Type: image/png
Size: 144 bytes
Desc: 4BDFEAA66B0849EAB3BD22E2119E4B36.png
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d16a3caf/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list