Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Dave F]

It strikes me that it's you whose "at war"



On 19/07/2016 14:48, Greg Morgan wrote:

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Dave F  wrote:

On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote:

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F 
wrote:


...Two wrongs don't make a right.

And yet you persist at your war.



We are an open
source project that should be building on each other's work.  I agree
that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change.  I disagree
with how you are handling the situation.  The better way forward is
not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing;
crossing=unmarked;


How do you know they're unmarked?


The long story short is that there is a node that is tagged that can
be built upon.  Even with the current tagging that Wynnham added or
removed, there is a node to build upon.  Add just the FIXME tag to the
current tagging. I don't care. The big sledge hammer approach to your
fellow mapper is what I care about.



Reverting will reinsert the highway=crossing to all tags in one go.


FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other
tags or changing the crossing tag.


That's the same as asking on Talk-gb for users to check which, I suspect,
will have a higher hit rate.

Right to the end you have this precision that no one else can match.
Look at all the energy that you spent on correctness and continue to
do so.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Dave F]

On 19/07/2016 14:36, Benoît Barteaux wrote:
I suppose that reverting a changeset could be seen as "insulting" or 
demotivating. To me, a better approach would simply be to let it go 
(why waste some time on thirty nodes ?), or if you want correct-it 
yourself.


IMHO, going on a war that could result in the original author loosing 
his motivation is far worse than maybe putting wrong information on 24 
nodes. I mean: there are far worse errors in OSM that this.


You're probably correct if you take this one changeset in isolation, but 
if it shows to it's creator & to other users that mass edits like this 
may not be the best way then it could prevent many further poor edits in 
the future.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Greg Morgan]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Dave F  wrote:
>
> On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ...Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>
>> And yet you persist at your war.

>
>
>>We are an open
>> source project that should be building on each other's work.  I agree
>> that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change.  I disagree
>> with how you are handling the situation.  The better way forward is
>> not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing;
>> crossing=unmarked;
>
>
> How do you know they're unmarked?
>

The long story short is that there is a node that is tagged that can
be built upon.  Even with the current tagging that Wynnham added or
removed, there is a node to build upon.  Add just the FIXME tag to the
current tagging. I don't care. The big sledge hammer approach to your
fellow mapper is what I care about.


> Reverting will reinsert the highway=crossing to all tags in one go.
>
>> FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other
>> tags or changing the crossing tag.
>
>
> That's the same as asking on Talk-gb for users to check which, I suspect,
> will have a higher hit rate.

Right to the end you have this precision that no one else can match.
Look at all the energy that you spent on correctness and continue to
do so.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Benoît Barteaux]

On 19/07/16 15:26, Dave F wrote:

On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F  
wrote:
Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to 
revert this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the 
amendments can clarify what is the correct tagging to use. 

NO!  I am putting the emphasis on the bullying that is going on in the
community under the guise of correctness.


I'm struggling to see how asking for other's opinions could be 
regarded as bullying. I'm endeavouring to make the OSM database as 
accurate as possible. When I see edits that make it worse I will query 
it. That's not bullying, 


I suppose that reverting a changeset could be seen as "insulting" or 
demotivating. To me, a better approach would simply be to let it go (why 
waste some time on thirty nodes ?), or if you want correct-it yourself.


IMHO, going on a war that could result in the original author loosing 
his motivation is far worse than maybe putting wrong information on 24 
nodes. I mean: there are far worse errors in OSM that this.


Best,

B.B.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Dave F]

On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote:

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F  wrote:


...Two wrongs don't make a right.

And yet you persist at your war.


Seriously?



Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to 
revert this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the 
amendments can clarify what is the correct tagging to use. 

NO!  I am putting the emphasis on the bullying that is going on in the
community under the guise of correctness.


I'm struggling to see how asking for other's opinions could be regarded 
as bullying. I'm endeavouring to make the OSM database as accurate as 
possible. When I see edits that make it worse I will query it. That's 
not bullying,



   You took it upon yourself
to allege an automated edit in the talk on the change set.


No I never. Please pay attention


   Now you
brought your war here.


Where better to have a discussion than a 'Talk' forum?


   You want to roll back someone's work just
because you think you are right


No. It's because Wynnham has made assumptions.


  yet you cannot say that you have
surveyed the ground either.  That's my objection!



   We are an open
source project that should be building on each other's work.  I agree
that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change.  I disagree
with how you are handling the situation.  The better way forward is
not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing;
crossing=unmarked;


How do you know they're unmarked?

Reverting will reinsert the highway=crossing to all tags in one go.


FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other
tags or changing the crossing tag.


That's the same as asking on Talk-gb for users to check which, I 
suspect, will have a higher hit rate.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Greg Morgan]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F  wrote:
>
> On 16/07/2016 07:20, Greg Morgan wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro S. 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey
>>> what
>>> they are doing...
>>>
>>> I think it should be reverted.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>Alejandro Suárez
>>
>>
>> 4.) Edit 7, the edit under dispute, Wynndale removes the
>> highway=crossing tag following the first sentence of the wiki page and
>> the rest of the paragraph.
>>
>
> I think you're putting to much importance on the wiki & not enough about
> what's on the ground.
> Wynndale to an incorrect tag & made it worse (to correct it the removed tag
> would have to be re-added & then crossing=no removed.
>
> The geographic spread strongly implies he didn't have local knowledge for
> them all.
>
>> So how about coaching the mapper verses reverting the changeset or
>> making an allegation.
>
>
> He's made over 1400 edits since 2009.
>
>>   Even the original tagging is wrong.
>
>
> Two wrongs don't make a right.

And yet you persist at your war.

>
>> Why would
>> you want to revert a change that is right based on the wiki to
>> something that is wrong to begin with?
>
>
> Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to revert
> this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the amendments can
> clarify what is the correct tagging to use.

NO!  I am putting the emphasis on the bullying that is going on in the
community under the guise of correctness.  You took it upon yourself
to allege an automated edit in the talk on the change set.  Now you
brought your war here.  You want to roll back someone's work just
because you think you are right yet you cannot say that you have
surveyed the ground either.  That's my objection!  We are an open
source project that should be building on each other's work.  I agree
that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change.  I disagree
with how you are handling the situation.  The better way forward is
not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing;
crossing=unmarked; FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other
tags or changing the crossing tag.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Dave F]

On 16/07/2016 07:20, Greg Morgan wrote:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro S.  wrote:

Hi,
Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey what
they are doing...

I think it should be reverted.

Kind regards,
   Alejandro Suárez


4.) Edit 7, the edit under dispute, Wynndale removes the
highway=crossing tag following the first sentence of the wiki page and
the rest of the paragraph.



I think you're putting to much importance on the wiki & not enough about 
what's on the ground.
Wynndale to an incorrect tag & made it worse (to correct it the removed 
tag would have to be re-added & then crossing=no removed.


The geographic spread strongly implies he didn't have local knowledge 
for them all.



So how about coaching the mapper verses reverting the changeset or
making an allegation.


He's made over 1400 edits since 2009.


  Even the original tagging is wrong.


Two wrongs don't make a right.


Why would
you want to revert a change that is right based on the wiki to
something that is wrong to begin with?


Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to 
revert this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the 
amendments can clarify what is the correct tagging to use.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Alejandro S.]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 08:20 Greg Morgan  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro S. 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey
> what
> > they are doing...
> >
> > I think it should be reverted.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >   Alejandro Suárez
>
> Alejandro,
>
> Did you even read the change history of any nodes such as node
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/729984457/history or consult the
> tagging page on the subject before you making the allegation that this
> was an automated edit?
> "crossing=no Where definitely no crossing is possible/legal. This tag
> must be used without a highway=crossing, so data consumers only
> evaluating the high-level highway tag are not mislead into assuming a
> crossing here.
> As crossing=no excludes the existence of a crossing, the combination
> of highway=crossing and crossing=no is invalid.
> Thus, if there is a place where one would expect a crossing but where
> is definitely no crossing, you may tag this with crossing=no but
> without highway=crossing.
>
> It is obvious from the history and experience with Josm's noisy
> validator that his is not an automated edit.   Wynndale was merely map
> gardening.  The obvious change for this node is highway=crossing and
> crossing=unmarked.  I say that because of the two lane looking cycle
> way that crosses the road.  crossing=no may have been UniEagle's
> attempt at crossing=unmarked.
> 1.) Edit 1 5/11/2010 NaN135709 adds the node at the crossing.
> 2.) Edits 2 to 5 from 6/29/2011 to 4/22/2014 all have the missing
> crossing information.
> 3.) Finally on edit 6 on 4/22/14 roughly four hours after edit 5
> UniEagle adds highway=crossing and crossing=no.  And when we look at
> the wiki diff history, we can defend UniEagle's decision because there
> wasn't much information at the time.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing=revision=1012147=963951
> 4.) Edit 7, the edit under dispute, Wynndale removes the
> highway=crossing tag following the first sentence of the wiki page and
> the rest of the paragraph.
>
> The better option follows on the next sentence of wiki:
> "crossing=unmarked A crossing without road markings or traffic lights"
>
> So how about coaching the mapper verses reverting the changeset or
> making an allegation. Even the original tagging is wrong.  Why would
> you want to revert a change that is right based on the wiki to
> something that is wrong to begin with?  How about clarifying the wiki
> page before accusing someone of an automated edit?  How about let's
> congratulate Wynndale on a brave attempt at map gardening in such a
> hostile environment?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>

I'm sorry about the first comment, I didn't checked the wiki before
commenting and I wasn't aware of the "editing war" there.

On the other hand, I think this "map gardening" across the half of UK
without local knowledge it isn't the best way to improve map quality. Maybe
it's better not to start doing that kind of map gardening until the wiki is
clear?

Best regards,
Alejandro

>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Greg Morgan]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro S.  wrote:
> Hi,
> Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey what
> they are doing...
>
> I think it should be reverted.
>
> Kind regards,
>   Alejandro Suárez

Alejandro,

Did you even read the change history of any nodes such as node
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/729984457/history or consult the
tagging page on the subject before you making the allegation that this
was an automated edit?
"crossing=no Where definitely no crossing is possible/legal. This tag
must be used without a highway=crossing, so data consumers only
evaluating the high-level highway tag are not mislead into assuming a
crossing here.
As crossing=no excludes the existence of a crossing, the combination
of highway=crossing and crossing=no is invalid.
Thus, if there is a place where one would expect a crossing but where
is definitely no crossing, you may tag this with crossing=no but
without highway=crossing.

It is obvious from the history and experience with Josm's noisy
validator that his is not an automated edit.   Wynndale was merely map
gardening.  The obvious change for this node is highway=crossing and
crossing=unmarked.  I say that because of the two lane looking cycle
way that crosses the road.  crossing=no may have been UniEagle's
attempt at crossing=unmarked.
1.) Edit 1 5/11/2010 NaN135709 adds the node at the crossing.
2.) Edits 2 to 5 from 6/29/2011 to 4/22/2014 all have the missing
crossing information.
3.) Finally on edit 6 on 4/22/14 roughly four hours after edit 5
UniEagle adds highway=crossing and crossing=no.  And when we look at
the wiki diff history, we can defend UniEagle's decision because there
wasn't much information at the time.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing=revision=1012147=963951
4.) Edit 7, the edit under dispute, Wynndale removes the
highway=crossing tag following the first sentence of the wiki page and
the rest of the paragraph.

The better option follows on the next sentence of wiki:
"crossing=unmarked A crossing without road markings or traffic lights"

So how about coaching the mapper verses reverting the changeset or
making an allegation. Even the original tagging is wrong.  Why would
you want to revert a change that is right based on the wiki to
something that is wrong to begin with?  How about clarifying the wiki
page before accusing someone of an automated edit?  How about let's
congratulate Wynndale on a brave attempt at map gardening in such a
hostile environment?

Regards,
Greg

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Benoît Barteaux]

Let's be civilized and give them the benefit of the doubt first ;-) A 
long discussion is always better than a premature, maybe wrong, revert.


Regards,

B.


On 13/07/16 20:04, Alejandro S. wrote:

Hi,
Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey 
what they are doing...


I think it should be reverted.

Kind regards,
  Alejandro Suárez

On 13 July 2016 at 18:40, Dave F > wrote:


Hi

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40612462

In the above changeset user Wynndale has taken nodes with
highway=crossing, crossing=no & removed the highway tags:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2714463033/history

I'm unsure why the nodes originally had crossing=no, but I think
removing the highway tag makes them even more inaccurate.

As can be seen I left a message, but not relieved a reply even
though he's made further edits.

I think the changeset should be reverted, but opinions welcomed.

Dave F.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
Cordialement,
Besoins en programmation IT de pointe ?
Contactez nous, BBashIT s'occupe de tout

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/07/2016 17:40, Dave F wrote:


I'm unsure why the nodes originally had crossing=no, but I think 
removing the highway tag makes them even more inaccurate. 


Leaving aside the "undiscussed mechanical edit" issues (see 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-July/076403.html for 
my comments on that) in this case it's definitely worth a conversation 
with the mappers about what they were trying to encapsulate, and with 
the "crossing" wiki page editors about why 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing is as it is.  I suspect 
part of that reason in the latter case may be recent edits by wiki 
editors with differing views on what "crossing=no" means resulting in a 
bit of a mess.


I don't believe that I've ever been to any of the places that were 
changed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40612462 so I'm 
guessing based on imagery and familiarity with nearby places (e.g. the 
one in Cannock Chase).  Looking at one of the examples in that 
changeset, http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2714463033 , it looks like 
"somewhere where you can cross the road but there's no traffic 
control".  It is a specific place where you can cross - footpaths 
terminate at that node.  I personally wouldn't tag it as any sort of 
crossing since there's no infrastructure, although it's clear that 
whoever built the footpath did anticipate crossing there rather than 
elsewhere.


The wiki page for highway=crossing (currently) says "Where definitely no 
crossing is possible/legal" for "no".  Unfortunately in itself that's 
very unclear - many places where crossing is legal it's essentially 
impossible to do so (e.g. many footpaths crossing dual carriageways), 
and there are also plenty of places where crossing is possible but 
illegal (e.g. in places where "jaywalking" laws exist).


Looking at another example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/190732659 
, it's clear that you can cross (based on the name of the bus stop if 
nothing else!) so "crossing=no" looks wrong there too.


There are of course only 24 nodes in total, so whoever cleans this up 
should ask the mappers of those nodes what it was they actually meant.  
My guess in some cases is "you can't cross here", in others "you can, 
but there's no infrastructure" and in others again "actually, there's a 
zebra crossing or some lights".


Also, any follow-up in-depth discussion about what "crossing=no" means 
is probably best had on the tagging list.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Alejandro S.]

Hi,
Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey what
they are doing...

I think it should be reverted.

Kind regards,
  Alejandro Suárez

On 13 July 2016 at 18:40, Dave F  wrote:

> Hi
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40612462
>
> In the above changeset user Wynndale has taken nodes with
> highway=crossing, crossing=no & removed the highway tags:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2714463033/history
>
> I'm unsure why the nodes originally had crossing=no, but I think removing
> the highway tag makes them even more inaccurate.
>
> As can be seen I left a message, but not relieved a reply even though he's
> made further edits.
>
> I think the changeset should be reverted, but opinions welcomed.
>
> Dave F.
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.

[Dave F]

Hi

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40612462

In the above changeset user Wynndale has taken nodes with 
highway=crossing, crossing=no & removed the highway tags:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2714463033/history

I'm unsure why the nodes originally had crossing=no, but I think 
removing the highway tag makes them even more inaccurate.


As can be seen I left a message, but not relieved a reply even though 
he's made further edits.


I think the changeset should be reverted, but opinions welcomed.

Dave F.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk