[Talk-GB] Changing "stub" cycleways to pavements

[Dave F]

Hi

Have you contacted Peter to inform him you're posting this query here?

I believe your edits are incorrect & you're misinterpreting road signs. 
They're often placed ahead the location they're referring to give road 
users time to interpret the sign & adjust their behavior appropriately.

To give another example, this is just around the corner from the bridge.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3844815,-2.6260151,3a,75y,153.54h,81.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swRoY3bhnG1EX399FmTvo9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Note the speed limit sign doesn't mean you can increase speed from 20 to 
30mph as soon as you pass the sign & approach the junction. It means the 
road you're about to turn onto has a limit of 30mph.

DaveF.






On 15/02/2022 00:59, Sam Heppenstall via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've never posted to a mailing list before but I've been advised by 
> people on the OSM Discord to take this issue here. Apologies if I'm 
> missing any etiquette or procedure sending this.
>
> For context I've been having what I guess would be considered 'edit 
> wars' with a mapper called Pete Owens, particularly over mapping 
> bicycle infrastructure, with issues such as separate highway=cycleway 
> vs on-road cycleway=track. This has been going on for a number of 
> months, and I've only been using OSM since May 2021. Naturally since 
> he's been using it since 2009, he looks like the more senior and 
> experienced mapper, but hear me out.
>
> The issue in question is of him deleting "stubs" - bits of cycleway 
> that lead to nowhere or turn into regular pavement. I'm of the mind 
> that you should draw the cycleway up to the legal boundary of where 
> you can ride, where is a painted symbol or cycleway sign (verifiable 
> on the ground). He thinks this is "silly" and continues to change such 
> segments to pavements, with bicycle=no tagged (as he has added to 
> almost every pavement I have mapped in general - I'm aware pavement 
> mapping can be controversial). I'm not sure if he's justifying this 
> based on routability or aesthetics or 'simplifying' a la TomJeffs.
>
> An obvious example of such a changeset (and what tipped me towards 
> sending this) is https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117413424, 
> superseding https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117374335 where he 
> word-vomits on my changeset.
>
> Obviously you're hearing this from me and as someone directly 
> involved, I am biased. Apparently the mailing list is the place to go 
> to obtain consensus on such issues. If there's no point having these 
> 'stubs' and I'm just being 'silly', better that than continue another 
> thread of this mad, headache duopoly of cycleway mapping in Warrington.
>
> At the end of the day, I'm looking for a clear outcome as to who is in 
> the wrong and how to proceed mapping cycleways. Whether to draw them 
> up to legal boundaries - or whether to draw the more simplistic, 
> intended route you'd practically cycle (assuming you're following the 
> law on pavement cycling, which isn't necessarily a given). Any and all 
> input is appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Falsernet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220215/7939bd68/attachment.htm>