[talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

Hi Sebastian

> It is both frustrating and disappointing to see that you continue to  
>  argue your point of view that is incorrect.
> It is clear that a local council who follows the Victorian road laws  
>  has published the permissions of ways within their jurisdiction yet  
>  you still try to argue that ways are incorrectly tagged.

No, I do not argue that the ways are incorrectly tagged. I argue that  
the consensus, the majority of OSM editors, believe that the ways are  
incorrectly tagged.

>
> To the point I made in the previous thread, cycling is not permitted  
>  on any way unless specifically signed. This is exemplified in  
> change  set 127561873 where the permissions that Frankston council  
> have  established in line with our road rules.

The consensus, not just me, reject your argument that cycling is not permitted
  on any way unless specifically signed

>
> Regardless of copyright, I have personally verified all roads in the  
>  Seaford wetlands via both foot and bike and tagged ways according  
> to  what is on the ground and which is back to back with Frankston   
> council (as per Victorian law) yet you still cannot provide any   
> evidence that my tagging is incorrect.

I do not need to provide evidence that you are incorrect. The  
concensus believes that you are incorrect.

I ask that you conform to community expectations and not tag on the  
basis that cycling is not permitted  on any way unless specifically  
signed.

Thanks
Tony


>
>
>
>> On 23 Oct 2022, at 10:06 am, forster at ozonline.com.au wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sebastian
>>
>> You sent me private message, 15/10/22 20:52:39 EST
>> In it you agreed that consensus had been achieved even though you   
>> thought it was wrong.
>>
>> I was disappointed to then see further tagging changes which in my   
>> opinion go against community consensus.
>>
>> Changeset: 127828054
>> 172362952, v4 cycleway changed to footway
>> 170529137, v5 cycleway changed to footway
>>
>> Changeset: 127827849
>> 995759320, v2 cycleway changed to footway
>> 995753641, v3 cycleway changed to footway
>>
>> Changeset: 127561873
>> 15 Oct 9:28am (UTC?), I think this is after your mail to me.
>> It lists source:   
>> https://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/things-to-do/parks-and-reserves/pdfs/seaford_wetlands_reserve_2018.pdf
>> This source may not be allowed because of copyright
>> 1024370763, v2 bicycle=yes, foot=yes changed to bicycle=no foot=no
>> a highway=footway with foot=no makes little sense, if you are   
>> correct then its just an informal path with access=no?
>> 827522368, v7 bicycle=yes changed to bicycle=no
>> Seaford Wetlands Trail (770944899) bicycle =yes changed to bicycle=no
>>
>> Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to me that you continue to   
>> act against community consensus though you agree that consensus had  
>>  been achieved. Your thoughts please.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tony
>>
>>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>