[Talk-GB] Dodgy bicycle tagging, was Re: help with reverting changeset (all cycleways in a particular area deleted)
Chris Hodges
chris at c-hodges.co.uk
Tue Apr 19 12:52:43 UTC 2022
I agree completely, and Heavy Metal Handcyclist was one of the
accessibility advocates I was thinking of, along with riders whose bikes
give them mobility while being harder to recognise as mobility aids
(e.g. https://twitter.com/tricyclemayor ). Then there's the gentleman
who parked his e-bike outside Lidl, unfolded his walking stick, and went
off to do his shopping as I was loading my bike - he wouldn't be doing
much pushing.
I'm an able-bodied bike tourist so my difficulties are mere irritations
compared to the trouble some people have (pretty big irritations when I
have to lift it over a gate because the gap it's supposed to be pushed
through is too tiny and it weighs 40kg laden - but irritations nonetheless)
BTW I'm wary of deleting anything myself, let alone deleting to replace
with another way of recording.
I had routing issues on Sunday where Komoot had used OSM data to route
us up something labelled "public footpath" and not loking much like it
was designed to be ridden
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119859473 is my attempt to
fix). I think
On 19/04/2022 13:00, Jon Pennycook 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 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/20220419/1c38efa4/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list