[Talk-GB] Dodgy bicycle tagging, was Re: help with reverting changeset (all cycleways in a particular area deleted)
Tony Shield
tonyosm9 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 13:16:55 UTC 2022
Hi Chris
Could highway=footway be better than highway=path in this instance
Tony
On 19/04/2022 13:52, Chris Hodges wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220419/2335986a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list