Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Anthony,

I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating 
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know 
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find 
the same errors get reintroduced.


I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If 
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will 
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other 
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to 
stop other editors from making changes in an area.


In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the 
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in 
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the 
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.


I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't 
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more 
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these 
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.


Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map, 
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better 
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time 
doing the fun stuff. :)


Dian

On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your 
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some 
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take 
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the 
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was 
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns, 
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but 
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture 
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which 
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive 
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more 
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than 
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't 
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing 
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people 
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do 
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do 
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it. 
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!


From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
  Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
   4. FW:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)

--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:


This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?


Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:

1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel

When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.


from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
account 

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

[Anthony Panozzo]

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your validator 
toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some routing edits 
are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take to get some 
intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the intersection, the 
one you pointed out was pretty simple and was functioning 100% correctly before 
you touched it now it allows u-turns, you’re pointing out the tiny issue that 
your validator points out but what you don’t realize is that the validator doe 
not see the big picture either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting 
restrictions which are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the 
first time ive ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot 
more knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than 
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don’t know the 
intended routing and can’t see any errors using the routing engine itself LEAVE 
IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people with local knowledge of the 
areas, I put a lot of time into what I do including random routing on my gps to 
see what it will throw at me, I do not need to be worry about you and your tool 
coming along to destroy it. I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are 
spelling errors!


From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
  Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
   4. FW:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?

Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:

1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel

When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.

> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap

This changeset deleted this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961

which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389

which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.

>  and Changeset:
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap

This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446

You