[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 13:41:44 UTC 2022
Quite possibly, though the generic "path" never seems wrong, only less
useful than a more specific tag.
But it gets more complicated. I went by the signs on the ground
(obviously a suitable data source), but I've done some more digging, and
RoWmaps doesn't have it as a public footpath
https://www.rowmaps.com/showmap.php?place=Hooton%20Levitt&map=BingOS&lat=53.4171&lon=1.21873&lonew=W
The OS map isn't a permissible source of course, but is really unhelpful
anyway: at 50k it's a road, but at 25k it's a road, unfenced on one
side, and with an orange dot signifying an off-road bike route. There's
a 2nd dot on a connected track at the top/south end - I looked briefly
for signs at the top but didn't have time to survey more thoroughly
being only 43km into a 300km day of cycling.
I guess something has changed recently and not all data has been updated
On 19/04/2022 14:16, Tony Shield wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220419/9bc00075/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list