[Talk-GB] Dodgy bicycle tagging, was Re: help with reverting changeset (all cycleways in a particular area deleted)

Tue Apr 19 10:37:44 UTC 2022

I think the biggest single 'de-escalation' of this conflict would be if the default map on osm.org had a colour for shared paths - e.g. highway=cycleway that has a foot=yes|designated or a highway=footpath with a bicycle=yes|designated.

At the moment shared ways appear as either on osm.org as blue dashed lines or re-dashed lines, and the pedestrian and cyclist userbases are irked.   A cycle-only way looks the same as a shared way.  If there was a multicolour dashing or third-colour dashing, that would solve the problem.   (In my view at least).

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_osm at ksglp.org.uk

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, at 11:17 AM, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB wrote:
> Perhaps the wiki articles on the bicycle subject, the bicycle tag, and the highway=cycleway tag need overhauling if so many people are misunderstanding them. 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, 11:12 Jon Pennycook, <jpennycook at bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>> > But I have noticed that a small number of people on OSM don't seem to like cycle infra (or maybe they don't understand it).
>> 
>> And some people like to put bicycle=yes on things that are convenient for them to cycle on, even when they are clearly private or have Cyclists Dismount signs. 
>> 
>> For example, footways with Cyclists Dismount signs, formerly tagged bicycle=dismount, and members of two LCNs and an NCN:-
>> 
>> > Hi the signs are present, but it is a route for cyclists, by customising the drop down you exclude the section from 3rd party systems that use the data. Hence changed to Yes for cycles, as it is regardless of whether ridden or pushed.
>> 
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022, 07:28 Jon Pennycook, <jpennycook at bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Morning.
>>> 
>>> I think those are two different people - Nathan_A_RF now tends to specialise in edits around Southampton (I think they used some controversial sources for a wider area until last Autumn, according to their Block page), and AR_Mapper specialises in Bracknell and New York.
>>> 
>>> But I have noticed that a small number of people on OSM don't seem to like cycle infra (or maybe they don't understand it).
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 05:41, Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> The same user added an entirely spurious bicycle=no to a bus gate in 
>>>> Woodham Ferrers. This made cycle routers take the scenic route and 
>>>> turned 300m of shared footway along Ferrers Road into a dead end. There 
>>>> was no source for the "corrections" in this edit. How odd that cycle 
>>>> infra seems to be the common feature in their problematic edits...
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93778124
>>>> 
>>>> On 17/04/2022 18:51, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB wrote:
>>>> > Thanks Phil - that's very helpful.
>>>> > 
>>>> > I don't understand what caused them to do this.  It turns out they are 
>>>> > not new - they just have a low edit count and that I've spoken to them 
>>>> > before about cycleways in Bracknell:-
>>>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92601276 
>>>> > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92601276>
>>>> > 
>>>> > Jon
>>>> > 
>>>> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 18:47, Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk 
>>>> > <mailto:phil at trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> >     I believe I have reverted
>>>> >     it, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119825773
>>>> >     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119825773>
>>>> > 
>>>> >     Phil (trigpoint)
>>>> > 
>>>> >     On Sun, 2022-04-17 at 18:10 +0100, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB wrote:
>>>> >      > Hello.
>>>> >      >
>>>> >      > A relatively new mapper just deleted a whole load of cycleways in
>>>> >      > Bracknell that were correctly mapped in
>>>> >      > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119816211
>>>> >     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119816211>
>>>> >      > I wasn't able to use http://revert.osmz.ru/
>>>> >     <http://revert.osmz.ru/> to revert the change:-
>>>> >      > Status: too big
>>>> >      > Error: Would not revert 644 changes
>>>> >      >
>>>> >      > Could someone assist with the reversion, please?  Or should I contact
>>>> >      > the DWG for assistance?
>>>> >      >
>>>> >      > Jon Pennycook
>>>> >      > _______________________________________________
>>>> >      > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> >      > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>>> >      > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>> >     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>>> >     Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> >     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>>> >     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>> >     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220419/f1399a51/attachment.htm>