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

Tue Apr 19 12:39:28 UTC 2022

Hello,

I’d urge people to tag these separately for many reasons that Jon’s covered
for cycles also applies to wheelchair users and others with mobility
issues. This page on the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wheelchair_routing and this community
discussion
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067
may be of relevant interest to several of you.

Cheers!

Aimee

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 13:02 Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB <
talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-- 
*Aimee Knight*
aimee at newgaea.net | aimee.knight at aimeesunflower.com
UK Phone +44 757 666 1461 <+44+7576+661461> US SMS Only +1 202 618 2470
<+1+202+618+2470>

Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
www.aimeesunflower.com

*In crisis? US Text HELLO to 741741, UK Text SHOUT to 85258.*

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220419/0a2885ee/attachment-0001.htm>