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

Tue Apr 19 12:00:00 UTC 2022

Hello Chris.

This is one reason why I disagree with people who delete cycleways and
replace with a generic cycleway=track on the road. The data on dropped
kerbs, inaccessible barriers, and dismount sections are lost. The late
Heavy Metal Handcyclist  https://twitter.com/CrippledCyclist used to post
on Twitter on how they would get councils to remove such barriers (their
cycle was their mobility aid).

>From my point of view, having my pannier bags full of shopping or stuff for
my holiday means I can't just dismount and push my bike over a raised kerb,
and getting round narrow gaps in barriers is impossible. Similarly, people
tagging non-cyclable ways as bicycle=yes makes journey planning problematic.

Jon

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022, 12:51 Chris Hodges, <chris at c-hodges.co.uk> wrote:

> The editor in this case is clearly wrong, and this is why we have the
> "dismount" tag, which renderers are free to use/stuff up as they see fit.
>
>
> But the main problem here isn't really the user.  It's the planners who
> designate cycle routes that can't be cycled.  Not all cyclists can dismount
> and push.  Reading up on accessible cycling recently has been eye-opening
> On 19/04/2022 11:12, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB 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 listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220419/21bd69b2/attachment-0001.htm>