[Talk-GB] Made-up motorway junction names

[yasslay]

At long last and following a small debacle with the message here, I have
access to the thread!

I was unable to say anything here as I had changed my email address from a
previous one to this one after Andy had started the thread on the mailing
list, but we both had a discussion regarding the topic on OSM.

Nonetheless, one of the main points I brought up was that these types of
changesets were being created by *road enthusiasts*, and while I hate to
generalise, it is without a doubt from where these changesets are coming
from. For example, the user *Falsernet* (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Falsernet) who has been creating these
types of changesets we're discussing here has brought up the *SABRE Wiki* (
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/) and *roads.org.uk <http://roads.org.uk/>* (
https://www.roads.org.uk/) as the main sources behind their changesets,
both of which are likely to be full of fictitious or dubious information.
There's also the possibility that they might be incompatible to use as a
source on *OSM* (from what was mentioned, roads.org.uk is apparently
copyright material whilst the SABRE situation is far more ambiguous in
terms of licensing).

As Andy mentioned previously, the user in question has also assigned other
dubious or fictitious names to roads across the UK. For example, the A40
near Gloucester was named the 'Golden Valley Bypass' (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124020874#map=14/51.8852/-2.1667)
by Falsernet which is clearly fictitious, and was recently reverted by Andy.

I do believe that some of the names they've added though have some basis in
reality, such as the naming they added to the A64 bypass of York (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128756509), which was aptly named
the 'York Bypass', and could be readded as a loc_name, perhaps.

Moving forward with this, I think there should be a thorough investigation
into Falsernet's changeset history and we can only go so far to assume good
faith with Falsernet's changes, especially taking into consideration the
previous confrontations against him with more dubious or fictitious names
he's added to OSM.

Additionally, I think we should also be much more vigilant on the naming of
motorways and important dual carriageway A roads in the UK, alongside the
junction names assigned to them. Considering the scope this issue has the
potential to cover, it may be worthwhile to look further into the issue.

Kind regards,
yasslay

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 8:50 PM Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/01/2023 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Which of this names you (or anyone else) can confirm to be real?
> > Is "Heath Interchange" an actual local name?
> >
> I'm familiar with the area, and I'm sure that "Heath Interchange" is not
> signed anywhere and I've never heard it as an actual local name.
>
> To see what the situation is here, it might help to browse to
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.19817/-1.32294 , edit the map
> there, and look at the "OS OpenMap Local" and "OS OpenData StreetView"
> layers there.  These are government open data sets from 2022 and 2016
> respectively.
>
> Historically, "Church Lane" ran from Heath village on the west from west
> to east, and "Mansfield Road" which ran from Heath village to the
> southeast.  These roads had names, but when the M1 and the new dual
> carriageway between Chesterfield and Mansfield were built, it
> interrupted these old roads.  The new roads built are not signed with
> names and no names for them are visible in either OS Open Data dataset.
> It is fair to assume that they do not have names.
>
> OSM currently has "Church Lane" continuing in error from Stockley to the
> motorway junction.  This is incorrect (actually added by the same editor
> that we're talking about with the other edits:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122731548 ) - OS OpenMap Local
> shows how it use to run, although I don't believe that there is any
> signage of Church Lane past the Twinoaks Motel at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225868110 or past Heath Old Church at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318741308/history .
>
> Similarly, OSM also has "Heath Road" extended beyond Heath village in
> error (same editor - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122731548
> again, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/140779691/history ).
>
> I'm sure that these edits are made with the best of intentions (a bit
> like that non-Scots person editing half the articles on the "Scots"
> wikipedia), but "guessing" names in OSM or making things up like this is
> not OK.  Unfortunately this isn't the only example of this -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128868519 is another.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230102/d4440d29/attachment-0001.htm>