Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Andrew Harvey]

Bit more discussion going on at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111889860, welcome to the list
HighRouleur.

These updates are important as a lot of the software and apps that cyclist
> use for course routing takes the shortest or fastest routes which could
> include illegal paths such as footpaths etc.


It was mentioned on this thread already that,

We have default access by highway type documented at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> >
>
...

> And formally defined within the data via
> `def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no` on
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741


So routing software which routes adult cyclists along highway=footway
without any bicycle=no would be considered buggy and the routing engine
should fix itself.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[forster]

Hi
This matter has been referred to the DWG
Tony


Hey all,

Sorry to be a tattle-tale, but this user's behaviour is continuing,
despite increasing demands on them to engage.
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886

In the most recent conversation, they have converted a powerline way
into a footpath in error.

Not sure what the appropriate next steps would be?

On 2021-09-23 12:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:


On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 22:02,  wrote:


I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all
involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It
appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey.

The largest category is changes of paths, (typically not those beside
roads, not what are generally termed footpaths in Australian English)
from dual use to bicycle=no on the logic that all paths are footpaths
unless otherwise signed under Victorian law.

This argument is questionable at best, these changes are not in "road
related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by
the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule.

Another category of changes is strange instances of bicycle=no. For
example you could ride a horse into the Eastern Sewage Plant but not a
bicycle. You can drive a car or walk into Wilson Botanic Gardens but
not enter on a bike. You can enter the Quarter Circuit residential
subdivision by any mode of transport except bicycle. You can travel
Browns Lane Aspendale by any mode of transport except a bicycle.

A third category is removal of bicycle=designated, it would require a
site visit to establish whether there was signage to designate cycle
use and whether this tag should remain.

A fourth is changes of narrow lanes servicing a number of houses to
service=driveway despite the wiki indicating that "A driveway is a
minor service road leading to a specific property"

They have not edited for the past 3 days. They have had changeset
comments on 19 changesets from 10 different commenters but replied to
only 3 and accepted that they were in error in 0.

There are 636 changesets by this person with many ways retagged. An
estimated 5000 ways have been retagged. An enormous amount of work if
each way was to be properly assessed.

Do I have community support for the proposal that they be invited to
respond in a constructive way to all the changeset comments and if
they do not respond in a timely matter the community should consider
mass reversion of all changesets? Is this a matter that can be managed
effectively through talk-au or should the DWG be involved?

I deeply regret suggesting that all of a users work might be deleted
but the amount of work to check each way is prohibitive. If any one
can devise an automated process to protect the few constructive edits,
that would be great.


The shared driveway point was raised by Tom on talk-au today, and   
it seems like the driveway=pipestem tag could be used in these   
cases so mark it as a shared driveway.


Regarding the other changes, I agree with your points, hopefully   
the mapper can respond to their changeset comments and hopefully   
work this out though discourse. Failing that, having good changes   
caught up in reversions is never good, but I understand it's a lot   
of effort otherwise, wish the tooling handled this better.


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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Diacritic]

Hey all,

Sorry to be a tattle-tale, but this user's behaviour is continuing, 
despite increasing demands on them to engage. 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886


In the most recent conversation, they have converted a powerline way 
into a footpath in error.


Not sure what the appropriate next steps would be?

On 2021-09-23 12:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:


On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 22:02,  wrote:


I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all
involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It
appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey.

The largest category is changes of paths, (typically not those beside
roads, not what are generally termed footpaths in Australian English)
from dual use to bicycle=no on the logic that all paths are footpaths
unless otherwise signed under Victorian law.

This argument is questionable at best, these changes are not in "road
related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by
the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule.

Another category of changes is strange instances of bicycle=no. For
example you could ride a horse into the Eastern Sewage Plant but not a
bicycle. You can drive a car or walk into Wilson Botanic Gardens but
not enter on a bike. You can enter the Quarter Circuit residential
subdivision by any mode of transport except bicycle. You can travel
Browns Lane Aspendale by any mode of transport except a bicycle.

A third category is removal of bicycle=designated, it would require a
site visit to establish whether there was signage to designate cycle
use and whether this tag should remain.

A fourth is changes of narrow lanes servicing a number of houses to
service=driveway despite the wiki indicating that "A driveway is a
minor service road leading to a specific property"

They have not edited for the past 3 days. They have had changeset
comments on 19 changesets from 10 different commenters but replied to
only 3 and accepted that they were in error in 0.

There are 636 changesets by this person with many ways retagged. An
estimated 5000 ways have been retagged. An enormous amount of work if
each way was to be properly assessed.

Do I have community support for the proposal that they be invited to
respond in a constructive way to all the changeset comments and if
they do not respond in a timely matter the community should consider
mass reversion of all changesets? Is this a matter that can be managed
effectively through talk-au or should the DWG be involved?

I deeply regret suggesting that all of a users work might be deleted
but the amount of work to check each way is prohibitive. If any one
can devise an automated process to protect the few constructive edits,
that would be great.


The shared driveway point was raised by Tom on talk-au today, and it 
seems like the driveway=pipestem tag could be used in these cases so 
mark it as a shared driveway.


Regarding the other changes, I agree with your points, hopefully the 
mapper can respond to their changeset comments and hopefully work this 
out though discourse. Failing that, having good changes caught up in 
reversions is never good, but I understand it's a lot of effort 
otherwise, wish the tooling handled this better.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 22:02,  wrote:

> I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all
> involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It
> appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey.
>
> The largest category is changes of paths, (typically not those beside
> roads, not what are generally termed footpaths in Australian English)
> from dual use to bicycle=no on the logic that all paths are footpaths
> unless otherwise signed under Victorian law.
>
> This argument is questionable at best, these changes are not in "road
> related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by
> the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule.
>
> Another category of changes is strange instances of bicycle=no. For
> example you could ride a horse into the Eastern Sewage Plant but not a
> bicycle. You can drive a car or walk into Wilson Botanic Gardens but
> not enter on a bike. You can enter the Quarter Circuit residential
> subdivision by any mode of transport except bicycle. You can travel
> Browns Lane Aspendale by any mode of transport except a bicycle.
>
> A third category is removal of bicycle=designated, it would require a
> site visit to establish whether there was signage to designate cycle
> use and whether this tag should remain.
>
> A fourth is changes of narrow lanes servicing a number of houses to
> service=driveway despite the wiki indicating that "A driveway is a
> minor service road leading to a specific property"
>
> They have not edited for the past 3 days. They have had changeset
> comments on 19 changesets from 10 different commenters but replied to
> only 3 and accepted that they were in error in 0.
>
> There are 636 changesets by this person with many ways retagged. An
> estimated 5000 ways have been retagged. An enormous amount of work if
> each way was to be properly assessed.
>
> Do I have community support for the proposal that they be invited to
> respond in a constructive way to all the changeset comments and if
> they do not respond in a timely matter the community should consider
> mass reversion of all changesets? Is this a matter that can be managed
> effectively through talk-au or should the DWG be involved?
>
> I deeply regret suggesting that all of a users work might be deleted
> but the amount of work to check each way is prohibitive. If any one
> can devise an automated process to protect the few constructive edits,
> that would be great.


The shared driveway point was raised by Tom on talk-au today, and it seems
like the driveway=pipestem tag could be used in these cases so mark it as a
shared driveway.

Regarding the other changes, I agree with your points, hopefully the mapper
can respond to their changeset comments and hopefully work this out though
discourse. Failing that, having good changes caught up in reversions is
never good, but I understand it's a lot of effort otherwise, wish the
tooling handled this better.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 23:27, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Likewise with highway=cycleway. In Victoria this means that both
> pedestrians and bikes are allowed. Explicitly tagging foot=yes and
> bicycle=yes adds unnecessary noise.
>

Victoria has some highway=cycleway + foot=no
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bpQ so I think explicitly tagging foot=yes or
foot=no is best if it's signposted as such, it's a clearer assertion that
this has been surveyed and it had dedicated signage indicating foot access,
which is a stronger assertion that just relying on the defaults.

I've seen a proliferation of foot=yes/designated and
> bicycle=yes/designated tags on bike paths. Generally I ignore them
> unless they are wrong. Do they provide any value?
>

I'm speaking for NSW here, but for most shared paths I'll add
foot=designated + bicycle=designated as a way to say there is signage here
indicating both modes signposted/designated. Especially for some paths here
which look and mostly act like a footpath, having those two access tags
mean it doesn't matter if the highway value is flipped between footway and
cycleway, the shared path tagging still remains.


> What happens if the law is changed and adults are allowed to ride on
> footpaths? These tags all become worse than nothing as there is no way
> to tell from OSM which paths have signs prohibiting cycling, and which
> tags are stating the default from before the law was changed.
>

One good reason why it might be best to only explicitly tag and not tag
only based on local law.


> We have default access by highway type documented at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
> >
>

And formally defined within the data via
`def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no` on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

hared paths in regards to  
bicycle rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to reach some kind of  
consensus about this and document it in the ATGs?




From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2021 09:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags



& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the  
footpath, unless specifically barred.




" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath 
 unless prohibited by a ?NO BICYCLES? sign. You must give way to  
pedestrians and ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or  
endanger other footpath users."




Thanks



Graeme





On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:


Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:



Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to 
 walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored)  
official signs I linked, a footpath.




It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as 
?sidewalk? in OSM.




e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png




In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren?t  
in this case) all of these are ?footpaths? as defined by law.




From: Kevin Pye mailto:kevin@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> ; OpenStreetMap  
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags



Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html 


ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
dictionary.



"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety  
Road Rules -- 
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html




The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule  
13(1) 
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s13.html> 
,  means an area 
<http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#area> 
open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main 
uses, use by  pedestrians"




Not particularly helpful.



On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44, <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:



In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all
paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."
Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs


Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html 


ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
dictionary.

Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a
road."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line
and the kerb.

That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015 
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo> 
=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo


So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au








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



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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Michael Collinson]

Just a thought and I hope not too imperialist sounding:  in UK England 
and Wales law, a distinction evolved between a "footway" and a 
"footpath", just possibly pre-1900 (unclear):


https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/
"'footway' is the modern legal term for ‘that part of the highway set 
aside for pedestrians’, commonly referred to as the pavement, and 
‘footpath’ is the modern legal term for other pedestrian thoroughfares"


I wonder if the same distinction made its way into Victorian state law??

Mike



On 2021-09-19 13:39, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all  
paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."

Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs


Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html 


ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which 
dictionary.


Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different 
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English), 
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a 
road."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria 
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line 
and the kerb.


That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo 



So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal 
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.


Tony



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



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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[forster]

I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all  
involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It  
appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey.


The largest category is changes of paths, (typically not those beside  
roads, not what are generally termed footpaths in Australian English)  
from dual use to bicycle=no on the logic that all paths are footpaths  
unless otherwise signed under Victorian law.


This argument is questionable at best, these changes are not in "road  
related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by  
the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule.


Another category of changes is strange instances of bicycle=no. For  
example you could ride a horse into the Eastern Sewage Plant but not a  
bicycle. You can drive a car or walk into Wilson Botanic Gardens but  
not enter on a bike. You can enter the Quarter Circuit residential  
subdivision by any mode of transport except bicycle. You can travel  
Browns Lane Aspendale by any mode of transport except a bicycle.


A third category is removal of bicycle=designated, it would require a  
site visit to establish whether there was signage to designate cycle  
use and whether this tag should remain.


A fourth is changes of narrow lanes servicing a number of houses to  
service=driveway despite the wiki indicating that "A driveway is a  
minor service road leading to a specific property"


They have not edited for the past 3 days. They have had changeset  
comments on 19 changesets from 10 different commenters but replied to  
only 3 and accepted that they were in error in 0.


There are 636 changesets by this person with many ways retagged. An  
estimated 5000 ways have been retagged. An enormous amount of work if  
each way was to be properly assessed.


Do I have community support for the proposal that they be invited to  
respond in a constructive way to all the changeset comments and if  
they do not respond in a timely matter the community should consider  
mass reversion of all changesets? Is this a matter that can be managed  
effectively through talk-au or should the DWG be involved?


I deeply regret suggesting that all of a users work might be deleted  
but the amount of work to check each way is prohibitive. If any one  
can devise an automated process to protect the few constructive edits,  
that would be great.


Thanks
Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Warin]

On 20/9/21 6:29 pm, Karl Cheng wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, > wrote:


Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:

Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people
to walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored)
official signs I linked, a footpath.

It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as
“sidewalk” in OSM.

e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png



In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there
aren’t in this case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.


From what I understand, this whole "Road Rules" regulation only 
applies to "roads" and "road related areas".
Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated 
for cyclists are considered to be "road related areas".

See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules for details.



The old NSW road rules said


"Any place open to, or used by, the public" ..


So council and supermarket carparks were covered, as were some group of 
people (the public) using private property - with or without permission...



I have no idea what the present ones say .. but I'd imagine something 
similar will be there. And I think other jurisdictions will have similar 
claims.


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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Karl Cheng]

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16,  wrote:

> Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:
>
>
>
> Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk
> on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I
> linked, a footpath.
>
>
>
> It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as “sidewalk”
> in OSM.
>
>
>
> e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood:
> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png
>
>
>
> In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren’t in
> this case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.
>

>From what I understand, this whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to
"roads" and "road related areas".
Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
cyclists are considered to be "road related areas".
See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules for details.


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


-- 
- Karl Cheng (Qantas94Heavy)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Tony via Talk-au]

Hi all

I am thinking that OSM maybe could better confine itself to what can  
be ground truthed.


If a path exists, motor vehicles are physically excluded and that  
there is no signage

motor_vehicle=no highway=path

if there's signage then =designated or no

Its not for us to judge if the path is legally a footpath. Applying a  
bicycle=no is not even correct because under 12 year olds and  
accompanying adults can use it.


Let the map renderers and routing engines worry about the legalities  
which change over time and which apply equally to the same physical  
features and can be applied "globally" by them and let OSM concentrate  
on the ground truthed physical features.


Tony



Yeah, I?m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal   
difference between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in  
 regards to bicycles in Queensland as far as I can tell.




e.g.   
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath




simply lists the two cases together as one.



On one hand, that makes bicycle tagging easy.



On the other hand, because of the equivalence, the local council, at  
 least in my suburb, doesn?t seem to bother putting up any shared   
path signs, despite the fact that some paths are by their   
construction (2.5m+ in width) pretty clearly designed as shared paths.




I noticed yesterday that some of them have this stamped on the   
surface every few 100m:   
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889335852357025822/unknown.png


But, legally speaking, because of the absence of shared path signs,   
they are still footpaths.




Now, under the Australian Tagging Guidelines, I?m supposed to tag   
all of these as highway=footway as far as I can tell:   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29




But I don?t think that really makes sense in this context because   
you do want the 3m paths perfect for cycling to stand out from the   
80cm footpaths.




When I started mapping my suburb donkey years ago, some of these   
larger ?footpaths? where mapped as highway=cycleway with various   
inconsistent tags on top. I?ve since standardized them to:




highway=cycleway

foot=designated (should that be only yes?)

bicycle=yes (to distinguish them from signed ?real? shared paths   
which are designated)


segregated=no



I believe this falls under the inverse of the rule:

Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated   
cycle facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is   
really a parking lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even  
 non-existent path. Mappers should use common sense and discretion,   
and map the effective facility that exists on the ground if it   
differs to what is defined by the Australian road rules.




But, given that I think this situation (councils not bothering to   
put up shared path signs for paths that are clearly designed as   
such) is probably common in Queensland and other states where there   
is equivalence of unsigned paths and shared paths in regards to   
bicycle rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to reach some kind of   
consensus about this and document it in the ATGs?




From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2021 09:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags



& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the   
footpath, unless specifically barred.




" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath  
 unless prohibited by a ?NO BICYCLES? sign. You must give way to   
pedestrians and ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or   
endanger other footpath users."




Thanks



Graeme





On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:


Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:



Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to  
 walk on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored)   
official signs I linked, a footpath.




It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as   
?sidewalk? in OSM.




e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood:   
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png




In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren?t   
in this case) all of these are ?footpaths? as defined by law.




From: Kevin Pye mailto:kevin@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au   
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> ; OpenStreetMap   
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags



Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/le

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[osm.talk-au]

Yeah, I’m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal difference 
between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in regards to bicycles 
in Queensland as far as I can tell.

 

e.g. 
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath

 

simply lists the two cases together as one.

 

On one hand, that makes bicycle tagging easy.

 

On the other hand, because of the equivalence, the local council, at least in 
my suburb, doesn’t seem to bother putting up any shared path signs, despite the 
fact that some paths are by their construction (2.5m+ in width) pretty clearly 
designed as shared paths.

 

I noticed yesterday that some of them have this stamped on the surface every 
few 100m: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889335852357025822/unknown.png

But, legally speaking, because of the absence of shared path signs, they are 
still footpaths.

 

Now, under the Australian Tagging Guidelines, I’m supposed to tag all of these 
as highway=footway as far as I can tell: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29

 

But I don’t think that really makes sense in this context because you do want 
the 3m paths perfect for cycling to stand out from the 80cm footpaths.

 

When I started mapping my suburb donkey years ago, some of these larger 
“footpaths” where mapped as highway=cycleway with various inconsistent tags on 
top. I’ve since standardized them to:

 

highway=cycleway

foot=designated (should that be only yes?)

bicycle=yes (to distinguish them from signed “real” shared paths which are 
designated)

segregated=no

 

I believe this falls under the inverse of the rule:

Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated cycle 
facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is really a parking 
lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even non-existent path. Mappers 
should use common sense and discretion, and map the effective facility that 
exists on the ground if it differs to what is defined by the Australian road 
rules.

 

But, given that I think this situation (councils not bothering to put up shared 
path signs for paths that are clearly designed as such) is probably common in 
Queensland and other states where there is equivalence of unsigned paths and 
shared paths in regards to bicycle rules, maybe it would be worthwhile to reach 
some kind of consensus about this and document it in the ATGs?

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Monday, 20 September 2021 09:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the footpath, unless 
specifically barred.

 

" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath unless 
prohibited by a ‘NO BICYCLES’ sign. You must give way to pedestrians and ride 
in a manner that does not inconvenience or endanger other footpath users."

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:

 

Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk on) 
is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I linked, 
a footpath.

 

It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as “sidewalk” in 
OSM.

 

e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png

 

In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren’t in this 
case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.

 

From: Kevin Pye mailto:kevin@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> 
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> ; OpenStreetMap 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

 

"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road Rules 
-- http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html

 

The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1) 
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s13.html> , 
means an area 
<http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#area>
  open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, 
use by pedestrians"

 

Not particularly helpful.

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 2

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

& in Qld, at least, bicycles are allowed to be ridden on the footpath,
unless specifically barred.

" Riding on the footpath
In Queensland, cyclists of any age are allowed to ride on a footpath unless
prohibited by a ‘NO BICYCLES’ sign. You must give way to pedestrians and
ride in a manner that does not inconvenience or endanger other footpath
users."

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 23:16,  wrote:

> Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:
>
>
>
> Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk
> on) is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I
> linked, a footpath.
>
>
>
> It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as “sidewalk”
> in OSM.
>
>
>
> e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood:
> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png
>
>
>
> In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren’t in
> this case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.
>
>
>
> *From:* Kevin Pye 
> *Sent:* Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
> *To:* fors...@ozonline.com.au
> *Cc:* osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OpenStreetMap <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags
>
>
>
> Hi all
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
> ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
> says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
> dictionary.
>
>
>
> "The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road
> Rules --
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html
>
>
>
> The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1)
> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s13.html>,
> means an area
> <http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#area>
> open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses,
> use by pedestrians"
>
>
>
> Not particularly helpful.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44,  wrote:
>
> > In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all
> > paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."
> > Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs
>
> Hi all
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
> ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
> says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
> dictionary.
>
> Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different
> countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
> "A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),
> footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a
> road."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk
>
> This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria
> Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line
> and the kerb.
>
> That's not we are talking about here
> ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo
>
> So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal
> purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[osm.talk-au]

Well, that pretty much matches what I said before:

 

Anything that remotely looks like a footpath (is meant for people to walk on) 
is, in the absence of one of the 4 (3 + one mirrored) official signs I linked, 
a footpath.

 

It is not in any way limited to things that would be tagged as “sidewalk” in 
OSM.

 

e.g. take this example from my local neighbourhood: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/889134418067881994/unknown.png

 

In the absence of any signs saying otherwise (spoiler, there aren’t in this 
case) all of these are “footpaths” as defined by law.

 

From: Kevin Pye  
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 22:09
To: fors...@ozonline.com.au
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

 

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

 

"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road Rules 
-- http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html

 

The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1) 
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s13.html> , 
means an area 
<http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s350.html#area>
  open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, 
use by pedestrians"

 

Not particularly helpful.

 

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

> In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all   
> paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."
> Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs

Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.

Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different  
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),  
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a  
road."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria  
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line  
and the kerb.

That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015 
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo>
 =145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo

So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal  
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Kevin Pye]

>
> Hi all
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
> ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
> says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
> dictionary.


"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road
Rules --
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html

The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1)
,
means an area

open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses,
use by pedestrians"

Not particularly helpful.

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44,  wrote:

> > In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all
> > paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."
> > Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs
>
> Hi all
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
> ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
> says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
> dictionary.
>
> Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different
> countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
> "A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),
> footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a
> road."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk
>
> This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria
> Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line
> and the kerb.
>
> That's not we are talking about here
> ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo
>
> So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal
> purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[forster]

In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all   
paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."

Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs


Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which  
dictionary.


Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different  
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),  
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a  
road."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria  
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line  
and the kerb.


That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo

So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal  
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.


Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[osm.talk-au]

In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all paths are 
footpaths unless otherwise signed."

Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889007668096819260/unknown.png

Everything that sort of looks like a footpath has to be assumed to be a 
footpath.

After having a quick look, I think most of what got really is a footpath. But 
there are probably some errors.

e.g. this here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/850699423/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.994347=145.275723=19.334804029853068=973985916705405=photo=0.4859326202768015=0.5905877763133818=0

should really be tagged as :

highway=cycleway
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
segregated=yes

The fact that the footpath is mapped separately, but the cycleway is tagged as 
cycleway:left=track on the road complicates things unnecessary. It would be 
better to either tag both separately (as above) or tag both on the road.

and further up the road, here:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.991993667=145.2760858332=17=168126275188591=photo=0.4901788209737611=0.36933104386182475=0

should be split into separate:

highway=footway
and 
highway=cycleway

It's a bit annoying that the council did a really bad job with signing here, 
because this sign:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.990109333=145.276258=17=1126201011221699=photo=0.4920214322722534=0.4508931174020654=0

Should also have been at the point where the footpath and cycleway split.



-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 09:16
To: Andy Townsend 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Hi all
HighRouleur has replied at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252

"In case you weren’t aware, Victorian roads rules state that riding not a 
footpath is not permitted. Hence there does not need to be a sign to indicate 
no bikes.
The only exception apply to shared paths (bike and pedestrians) which are 
signed for use by bikes."

And I have in turn replied

Tony

>
> On 18/09/2021 14:05, Adam Horan wrote:
>> I think I've tried to contact this user before.
>
> Yes you did:
>
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886
>
> For info, to see who you've commented on the changesets of, go to "My 
> Edits", click on a changeset, click on "changeset xml" at the bottom 
> of the screen, note the "uid" that appears, and create a URL like 
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942
> nted
> that includes that "uid".
>
> Similarly, to see who has commented on a user's changesets use a URL 
> like http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 .
>
>>
>> However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite   
>> problem, they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow   
>> cycling. I have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' ,
>
> They've now specifically been asked about that in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 , so they do now 
> definitely know that it is an issue.  Sometimes it might also help to 
> mention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments to 
> explain things a bit more.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> _
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see 
> http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning





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



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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[forster]

Hi all
HighRouleur has replied at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252

"In case you weren’t aware, Victorian roads rules state that riding  
not a footpath is not permitted. Hence there does not need to be a  
sign to indicate no bikes.
The only exception apply to shared paths (bike and pedestrians) which  
are signed for use by bikes."


And I have in turn replied

Tony



On 18/09/2021 14:05, Adam Horan wrote:

I think I've tried to contact this user before.


Yes you did:

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886

For info, to see who you've commented on the changesets of, go to "My
Edits", click on a changeset, click on "changeset xml" at the bottom of
the screen, note the "uid" that appears, and create a URL like
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942
that includes that "uid".

Similarly, to see who has commented on a user's changesets use a URL
like http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 .



However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite   
problem, they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow   
cycling. I have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' ,


They've now specifically been asked about that in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 , so they do now
definitely know that it is an issue.  Sometimes it might also help to
mention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments to
explain things a bit more.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/09/2021 14:05, Adam Horan wrote:

I think I've tried to contact this user before.


Yes you did:

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886

For info, to see who you've commented on the changesets of, go to "My 
Edits", click on a changeset, click on "changeset xml" at the bottom of 
the screen, note the "uid" that appears, and create a URL like 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 
that includes that "uid".


Similarly, to see who has commented on a user's changesets use a URL 
like http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 .




However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite problem, 
they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow cycling. I 
have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' ,


They've now specifically been asked about that in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 , so they do now 
definitely know that it is an issue.  Sometimes it might also help to 
mention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments to 
explain things a bit more.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Adam Horan]

I think I've tried to contact this user before.

However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite problem, they
were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow cycling. I have only
ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' , and I don't think I've seen a
source referenced other than the iD bing imagery.

They also do a lot of path -> footway/cycleway changes, and I've seen them
flip-flop those way types on ways they edited months before.

This recent changeset reverts a shared footpath & cyclepath next to
McClelland Drive to a footway. I know from going along there recently that
it is a shared path.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110855931#map=16/-38.1286/145.1824
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/926500719/history

I think a lot that they do is valid and useful, however sourcing is
sometimes uncertain, the changeset comments are pointless, and there's many
incorrect edits.

Adam


On Sat, 18 Sept 2021 at 22:40,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have commented at Changeset: 111016252 way 304507133 has been
> changed from bicycle yes to bicycle no, I rode it today and saw no
> signage indicating this, this changeset has 88 ways with the comment
> "updates". A random survey shows lots of bicycle yes and designated
> removed. Lots of changed tags.
>
> 9 changeset(s) created by HighRouleur have been discussed with a total
> of 12 comment(s) - Replies by this contributor: 1
>
> changeset comments are nearly all "updates" with no explanation
>
> Ill see if I get a reply
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[forster]

Hi

I have commented at Changeset: 111016252 way 304507133 has been  
changed from bicycle yes to bicycle no, I rode it today and saw no  
signage indicating this, this changeset has 88 ways with the comment  
"updates". A random survey shows lots of bicycle yes and designated  
removed. Lots of changed tags.


9 changeset(s) created by HighRouleur have been discussed with a total  
of 12 comment(s) - Replies by this contributor: 1


changeset comments are nearly all "updates" with no explanation

Ill see if I get a reply

Tony



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