Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Ian Dees]

Ok all, I think we've rehashed this thread enough.

The decision was made and we should move on.

-Your friendly mod

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Well, on the flip side, there's also been some serious damage from
> torquing the primary and trunk tags on an indiscriminate nationwide basis
> that's still in the process of being fixed two years later.
> On Jun 12, 2013 8:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> wrote:
>
>> I had some positive email exchange with him years ago, but I must admit
>> back then we had the same opinion on what it was about. Maybe he is not the
>> most social person on the planet, but maybe this block gave him some time
>> to rethink how to solve problems together with others (as I agree this is
>> an important point in a community crowdsourced project like osm is) and
>> that sometimes you have to make compromises and cannot always have every
>> detail like you personally would have to. Anyway, his contributions are
>> impressive, he's been active in OSM almost every single day since he joined
>> the project in 12/2009 and he's #61 for nodes, #22 for ways and #5 for
>> relation contributions (according to Pascal Neis' service:
>> http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2 )!
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Paul Johnson]

Well, on the flip side, there's also been some serious damage from torquing
the primary and trunk tags on an indiscriminate nationwide basis that's
still in the process of being fixed two years later.
On Jun 12, 2013 8:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:

> I had some positive email exchange with him years ago, but I must admit
> back then we had the same opinion on what it was about. Maybe he is not the
> most social person on the planet, but maybe this block gave him some time
> to rethink how to solve problems together with others (as I agree this is
> an important point in a community crowdsourced project like osm is) and
> that sometimes you have to make compromises and cannot always have every
> detail like you personally would have to. Anyway, his contributions are
> impressive, he's been active in OSM almost every single day since he joined
> the project in 12/2009 and he's #61 for nodes, #22 for ways and #5 for
> relation contributions (according to Pascal Neis' service:
> http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2 )!
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I had some positive email exchange with him years ago, but I must admit
back then we had the same opinion on what it was about. Maybe he is not the
most social person on the planet, but maybe this block gave him some time
to rethink how to solve problems together with others (as I agree this is
an important point in a community crowdsourced project like osm is) and
that sometimes you have to make compromises and cannot always have every
detail like you personally would have to. Anyway, his contributions are
impressive, he's been active in OSM almost every single day since he joined
the project in 12/2009 and he's #61 for nodes, #22 for ways and #5 for
relation contributions (according to Pascal Neis' service:
http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2 )!

cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[James Mast]

> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:34:18 -0400
> From: nice...@att.net
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
> 
> On 6/12/2013 7:53 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
> > I'm
> > disappointed that the above recommendation didn't acknowledge that NE2
> > has done good work. I would say that on the whole his contributions in
> > terms of data are definitely a net positive, including a great deal of
> > geometry improvement, addition of new roads, etc.
> 
>   +1 - He got many of the major Interstate, US and state highway 
> relations and routing connectivity in order.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

I'll 2nd what both Mike and Josh have to say.
 
-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Mike N]

On 6/12/2013 7:53 AM, Josh Doe wrote:

I'm
disappointed that the above recommendation didn't acknowledge that NE2
has done good work. I would say that on the whole his contributions in
terms of data are definitely a net positive, including a great deal of
geometry improvement, addition of new roads, etc.


 +1 - He got many of the major Interstate, US and state highway 
relations and routing connectivity in order.




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Josh Doe]

On Fri May 31 23:48:45 UTC 2013, Paul Norman penorman at mac.com wrote:
>
> The full text of the DWG recommendation to the board is available at
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:DWG_NE2_Turn_Restriction_dispute.pdf
> but the executive summary is as follows:

I missed this thread until now, so sorry for the late comment. I'm
disappointed that the above recommendation didn't acknowledge that NE2
has done good work. I would say that on the whole his contributions in
terms of data are definitely a net positive, including a great deal of
geometry improvement, addition of new roads, etc. However I don't
fundamentally disagree with the recommendation because of the
communication problems, I just wish it didn't dismiss the thousands of
hours of good work he has done. I hope he can be reconciled at some
point and return to contributing.

-Josh

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Paul Norman]

> From: Shawn K. Quinn [mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:27 PM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
> 
> I just looked, and the site is showing the ban as expiring in two days
> (which would make it about a week long). Is it supposed to expire that
> soon? Given the circumstances, I would have expected an "indefinite" ban
> to last a bit longer than a week.

It will not be expiring - the reasons it is down as a 96h block right now
are technical in nature and don't reflect an intent to have a block that
lifts at a scheduled time.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 05/giu/2013, at 07:26, "Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:

> Given the circumstances, I would have expected an "indefinite" ban
> to last a bit longer than a week.


for someone who maps 96% of the days, a week is very long...

http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2

cheers,
Martin___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:48 -0700, Paul Norman wrote:
> The decision has been made to ban NE2. This is not a decision that was taken
> lightly. This is an indefinite ban.

I just looked, and the site is showing the ban as expiring in two days
(which would make it about a week long). Is it supposed to expire that
soon? Given the circumstances, I would have expected an "indefinite" ban
to last a bit longer than a week.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Alexander Jones]

Dave Hansen wrote:

> I know the current turn restriction relations aren't suited for it.
> But, instead of tagging "left turn restriction from X to Y" shouldn't we
> be tagging "the pavement has an arrow that says left turn only"?

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn

Alexander



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Ian Dees]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Michael Patrick wrote:

> FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool,
> one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-)
>
> Michael
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: FHP 
> Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM
> Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing
> To: Michael Patrick 
>
>
>  Dear Michael,
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is:
>
> ** **
>
> The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
> line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
> southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive.  
>
> ** **
>
> The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.*
>

Based on this response I've gone ahead and put the turn restriction back in:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14997729

I'd appreciate it if further disputes on this matter directly involve the
Data Working Group.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[stevea]

Once again, I stand with Apo here.  He and I together with other 
local OSM community (along with repeated messages to mk408 and 
eventually Frederick Ramm/DWG) got him blocked.  This evidently 
frustrated mk408 so much that he "stayed away" and the block became 
an effective "ban."  Afterwards, I know that Apo and I both were 
diligent in scanning our area for edits under a new username with his 
signature defect:  promoting most roads in Silicon Valley to 
tertiary.  As this didn't happen, the block worked, effectively 
"banning" him.


I'm not sure if NE2 were so blocked he would stay away, nor would it 
be so easy to determine "his style" of edits, they vary so much.  But 
what I believe we _would_ be able to determine if NE2 were to return 
after a block (a well-deserved block, in my opinion, if not for this 
single turn restriction dispute, but many others as well) is this: 
we would be able to detect his exceedingly argumentative, 
avoid-consensus-at-all-costs, my-way-or-the-highway (sorry) antics.


I believe NE2 to be engaging in what might be called "scent-marking:" 
he likes his moniker to be associated with very peculiar, and 
especially large-scale edits.  Some of these might actually be 
correct in a mind-bending, minutia oriented way, but in my opinion, 
the costs (of what we spend discussing his outrageous behavior, which 
really, it appears, is why he is here) far outweigh the benefits. 
There really are people who "get off" on attention-getting, by 
whatever method, especially bad, and NE2 appears to be one of them. 
His behavior is sociopathic to OSM.  He is a smart and clever 
sociopath, but acts as one nonetheless.  My dictionary defines this 
as "manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior." 
I need neither a degree nor a license to make this determination:  I 
am not a psychologist, simply observant.


You'll note I am not mincing words here, as this particular truth 
does not need to be coddled in politically correct overly kind 
assuagements of "let's extend benefit of doubt."  We've done that far 
too many times with NE2, and as of now, in my opinion, he should 
rightly, fairly, and soundly be blocked.  Vandalism is vandalism. 
Let us continue to say that that is what it is.


Please, I call upon OSM's DWG to take the appropriate action it has 
taken numerous times before:  block NE2.


SteveA
California



there is a precedent.
mk408. He was active mainly in one area only. after some edit war 
and unwilling to discuss with others he got blocked by DWG and then 
left for good.



On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Michal Migurski 
<m...@teczno.com> wrote:


I don't agree. NE2's edits, most of all the route relations, are 
enormously valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent 
for banning a user like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.


-mike.

---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com


On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:30 PM, stevea 
<stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:


 Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a 
second, or even that I am able to offer it. What I AM able to do is 
"be civil" and "use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum 
to discuss." There are plenty of other "consensus understandings" 
that might be loosely called "rules" which make up the fabric of 
OSM as a community. NE2 has again proven that he is either 
unwilling or unable to abide by those. Consequently, I think we 
should inform him that serious discussion of permanently banning 
him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior can either 
change for the better, or he can count on eventually being 
permanently banned. He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, 
and so I am not optimistic he will be around much longer. But if 
the community wants him, that can emerge as a consensus as well.


 His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared 
to the usual messes he makes. He DOES, for better or worse, stir 
controversy, which is why we discuss, which is part of the 
community. If, for that reason alone (that he is controversial), 
there are those who do not wish to ban him, speak up now, as you 
may (may) be able to make the case that we need somebody like him 
as an example of what to do with difficult contributors. I think it 
is unanimous that he is that, at least.

 >

 I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.

 SteveA
 California



 He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
 him to discuss this issue here.

 We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
 which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
 lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
 some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
 he were gone.

 I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.

 >

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Michael Patrick]

> Someone better add the routing restriction to this:
>
> https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dale+mabry+and+ehrlich,+tampa&hl=en&ll=28.08305,-82.505677&spn=0.000588,0.000426&sll=28.083838,-82.505216&sspn=0.002339,0.001706&t=h&hnear=Dale+Mabry+Hwy+%26+Ehrlich+Rd,+Tampa,+Florida+33618&z=21
>
> Along with the thousands of other places where this occurs.
>

Not necessarily - it is the 'system' of markings in a particular situation,
See offline comments below.

Michael



-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Patrick 
Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP
To: Nathan Edgars II 


> That passage from the Florida Driver Handbook is not based in law, but
seems to have been made up. Florida has adopted the MUTCD, which defines a
single white line as having no restrictive meaning. The FHP's ignorance of
the law is troubling but not surprising.

The engineer here says there is no one specific meaning for a single white
line ( 'sort of'', I think what you mean). That being said, it's the full *
system* of markers that deliver the intent and meaning, a single white line
can appear in many different places, to restrict movement in and out from
'trap lanes', or more specifically, when it is used in sequence with normal
dashed line, to close dashes (warning), to a solid line (lane restriction,
and eventually to the gore triangle. He said the solid white line is for
all intents and purposes regarded as part of the gore marking and is
illegal to cross ( even though it is not 'doubled' as mentioned below). See
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part3/fig3b_08_1_longdesc.htm ) The
MUTEC is a design guideline, state and local standards can supersede or
deviate with their own published standards, and there is a huge amount of
legacy markings which are gradually upgraded during maintenance. Law
enforcement 'interprets' MUTEC in conjunction with other guidelines ("Uniform
Vehicle Code (UVC)" from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws ),
and local ordinance.

For what it's worth, if I had pulled off on the exit, checked my trailer
lights, and proceeded to the top of the lamp, I probably would have went
straight through, because of the double signal configuration and position (
unless both green were left arrows), and the gore line isn't awfully
visible, and traffic probably would have been stopped on all three lanes on
Buena Vista Drive. Having done it once, though, I personally wouldn't do it
again.

> ... it's a little ridiculous that this dispute is going so far that
anyone even consulted an expert.

Ooops! Sorry, I talked to an expert. Again. Sigh. I should have realized
that the routing in question is transecting the intersection of two
alternate realities, OSM and also within a mile of The Magic of Disney
Animation. So instead of the Florida Highway Patrol, I've forwarded the
question to the staff at the co-located Twilight Zone Theater and the cast
and characters of
'Cars'<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Cars_2006.jpg>
for
a more OSM suitable answer.

> Obviously NE2 is wrong; we get it.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Once if it's showing 24 ... )

Michael

Reference:--
Not exactly the same situation, but related:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part3.htm#q7

   1. *Q: Does a solid white lane line prohibit crossing to change lanes on
   the approach to an intersection?*

*A:* MUTCD Section 3B.04 says to use a single solid white line to
"discourage" crossing the lane line and a double white line to prohibit
crossing it. A single solid white line is used for a variety of lines that
drivers should be discouraged from crossing in "normal" situations but
which drivers do need to cross in some situations. An example is the "edge
line"---the line that separates the rightmost travel lane from the
shoulder. The single solid white line discourages crossing onto the
shoulder but does not prohibit it because it is obviously desirable and/or
necessary to cross it in some situations, such as an emergency stop. The
MUTCD sets the national standards for pavement markings, but it does not
establish what the laws of the individual States may define as the legal
meanings of various types of lines in each State. Some States may have laws
that prohibit crossing a single solid white line in specific circumstances.
Some states also have laws that go beyond just the meaning of the lines, by
making certain driving maneuvers illegal under certain situations
regardless of the markings, such as changing lanes when it is "unsafe to do
so".

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part3.htm#q8


   1. *Q: How far in advance of a lane drop should the special lane drop
   markings begin?*

*A:* For a lane drop 

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Chris Lawrence]

Without wading too deeply into the personalities here, there's a
danger inherent to having rules that you will have people who think
they're being very clever by trying to repeatedly bump up against them
in ways that may respect the letter of the rules but not their
underlying spirit.  For example, a guideline like "don't tag for the
renderer" gets distorted into "any tagging scheme that could
conceivably be valid is equally valid, even if some renderers will
cope poorly with the one I like."

OpenStreetMap is not the argument room from Monty Python.  IMO people
who want to be in a community have to accept that sometimes the
consensus isn't what they'd like, and they can either live with it or
take their ball and join another community.  More importantly they
have to demonstrate a willingness and an ability to participate in
that consensus in the first place.  If they can't play sufficiently
well with others to help form a consensus, or refuse to accept what a
clear majority has adopted as the consensus if they don't participate,
then I'm not sure they can really be part of the community in any
meaningful sense.

What shouldn't be acceptable is wasting everyone else's time...
because this is the exact sort of attention-seeking
behavior-slash-performance art that people with this personality type
thrive on.  Which I fear is what this thread is.

In the immediate circumstances, what I think should be considered is
some general policy that creates a half-way house between either being
permitted full privileges or being banned; perhaps a policy in which
people are placed on mailing list moderation but can still contribute
after their message is vetted for appropriateness (for example, to
screen out ad hominem attacks and insults*) would be more appropriate
to community-building than this weird limbo in which you can edit but
largely can't be part of the community otherwise.  Of course, that
creates work for other people that may be unfair.  The simpler route
is the ban hammer.


Chris

* For example, if I can go to another site where you're a participant
and *every single use* of "f*** you" directed at other members is by
you, I might humbly suggest you need to work on your communication
style.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Apollinaris Schöll]

there is a precedent.
mk408. He was active mainly in one area only. after some edit war and
unwilling to discuss with others he got blocked by DWG and then left for
good.



On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Michal Migurski  wrote:

> I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are
> enormously valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for
> banning a user like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.
>
> -mike.
>
> ---
> michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com
>
> On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:30 PM, stevea  wrote:
>
> > Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second,
> or even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is "be civil" and
> "use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss."  There
> are plenty of other "consensus understandings" that might be loosely called
> "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again
> proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.
>  Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of
> permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his
> behavior can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually
> being permanently banned.  He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and
> so I am not optimistic he will be around much longer.  But if the community
> wants him, that can emerge as a consensus as well.
> >
> > His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to
> the usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy,
> which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that
> reason alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to
> ban him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we
> need somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult
> contributors.  I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least.
> >
> > I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.
> >
> > SteveA
> > California
> >
> >
> >> He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
> >> him to discuss this issue here.
> >>
> >> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
> >> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
> >> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
> >> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
> >> he were gone.
> >>
> >> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
> >> -russ
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Skye Book]

If it wasn't this dispute then it would have been another.  At least now 
there's a precedent set for ground truth and following the local laws.  One of 
the premises of OSM is that crowd-sourcing and local knowledge improves the 
quality of the maps, I think this conversation and eventual legal conclusion 
attained by going to the local authorities is exactly what OSM is about.

On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Clay Smalley  wrote:

> I think it's a little ridiculous that this dispute is going so far that 
> anyone even consulted an expert. Obviously NE2 is wrong; we get it. This dead 
> horse hasn't just been beaten; it's been liquefied. Let's just let the OSM 
> gods deal with it, and go on with our lives.
> 
> On Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM, "Michael Patrick"  wrote:
> FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool, one 
> can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-)
> 
> Michael
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: FHP 
> Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM
> Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing
> To: Michael Patrick 
> 
> 
> Dear Michael,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is:
> 
>  
> 
> The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop 
> line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the 
> southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive.  
> 
>  
> 
> The answer is “not without violating Florida law”.
> 
>  
> 
> Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left 
> Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your scenario, 
> instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight across the 
> intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right turn only 
> lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the roadway.
> 
>  
> 
> Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be 
> entering, has a solid white line on both sides of the lane which means that a 
> vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change lanes and no 
> other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to enter the lane 
> at that location.
> 
>  
> 
> The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47:
> 
>  
> 
> Solid White Line
> 
> A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of 
> traffic moving in the
> 
> same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this 
> line, but you should
> 
> not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard.
> 
>  
> 
> Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law.
> 
>  
> 
> Customer Service Center
> 
> Correspondence/Email Unit
> 
> Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
> 
> www.flhsmv.gov
> 
>  
> 
>  
> The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to Service, 
> Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in all we do. 
> Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer service survey at 
> https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM
> To: FHP
> Subject: Legal Intersection Crossing
> 
>  
> 
> We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. 
> 
>  
> 
> What is contested: 
> 
>  
> 
> The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off ramp 
> from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.
> 
> See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing )
> 
>  
> 
> The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop 
> line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the 
> southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive.  This is shown as the 
> red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing )
> 
>  
> 
> This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the off 
> ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane. 
> Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp.
> 
> See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing )
> 
>  
> 
> Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the 
> gore markers in the intersection.
> 
> BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing )
> 
>  
> 
> Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound at 
> this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three lanes 
> of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive ramp. 
> 
> BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing )
> 
>  
> 
> After

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Clay Smalley]

I think it's a little ridiculous that this dispute is going so far that
anyone even consulted an expert. Obviously NE2 is wrong; we get it. This
dead horse hasn't just been beaten; it's been liquefied. Let's just let the
OSM gods deal with it, and go on with our lives.
On Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM, "Michael Patrick"  wrote:

> FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool,
> one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-)
>
> Michael
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: FHP 
> Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM
> Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing
> To: Michael Patrick 
>
>
>  Dear Michael,
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is:
>
> ** **
>
> The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
> line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
> southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive.  
>
> ** **
>
> The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.* 
>
> ** **
>
> Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left
> Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your
> scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight
> across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right
> turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the
> roadway.
>
> ** **
>
> Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be
> entering, has a *solid white line* on both sides of the lane which means
> that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change
> lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to
> enter the lane at that location.
>
> ** **
>
> The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47:
>
> ** **
>
> *Solid White Line*
>
> A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes
> of traffic moving in the
>
> same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this
> line, but you should
>
> not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard.
>
> ** **
>
> Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. 
>
> ** **
>
> *Customer Service Center*
>
> *Correspondence/Email Unit*
>
> *Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles*
>
> *www.flhsmv.gov***
>
> ** **
>
>
> The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to
> Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in
> all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer
> service survey at *https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.*
>
> **
>
>
>   *From:* Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM
> *To:* FHP
> *Subject:* Legal Intersection Crossing
>
> ** **
>
> We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. 
>
> ** **
>
> What is contested: 
>
> ** **
>
> The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off
> ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.*
> ***
>
> See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing
>  )
>
> ** **
>
> The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
> line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
> southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive.  This is shown as the
> red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the
> off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane.
> Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp.
>
> See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the
> gore markers in the intersection.
>
> BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound
> at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three
> lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive
> ramp. 
>
> BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's
> Manual, etc. we were unable to make a conclusion. **
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
> ** **
>
> Michael Patrick
>
> Open Street Map
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Paul Johnson]

So can we revert NE2's revert from last night?
On Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM, "Michael Patrick"  wrote:

> FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool,
> one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-)
>
> Michael
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: FHP 
> Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM
> Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing
> To: Michael Patrick 
>
>
>  Dear Michael,
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is:
>
> ** **
>
> The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
> line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
> southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive.  
>
> ** **
>
> The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.* 
>
> ** **
>
> Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left
> Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your
> scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight
> across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right
> turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the
> roadway.
>
> ** **
>
> Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be
> entering, has a *solid white line* on both sides of the lane which means
> that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change
> lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to
> enter the lane at that location.
>
> ** **
>
> The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47:
>
> ** **
>
> *Solid White Line*
>
> A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes
> of traffic moving in the
>
> same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this
> line, but you should
>
> not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard.
>
> ** **
>
> Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. 
>
> ** **
>
> *Customer Service Center*
>
> *Correspondence/Email Unit*
>
> *Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles*
>
> *www.flhsmv.gov***
>
> ** **
>
>
> The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to
> Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in
> all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer
> service survey at *https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.*
>
> **
>
>
>   *From:* Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM
> *To:* FHP
> *Subject:* Legal Intersection Crossing
>
> ** **
>
> We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. 
>
> ** **
>
> What is contested: 
>
> ** **
>
> The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off
> ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.*
> ***
>
> See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing
>  )
>
> ** **
>
> The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
> line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
> southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive.  This is shown as the
> red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the
> off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane.
> Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp.
>
> See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the
> gore markers in the intersection.
>
> BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound
> at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three
> lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive
> ramp. 
>
> BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or 
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's
> Manual, etc. we were unable to make a conclusion. **
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
> ** **
>
> Michael Patrick
>
> Open Street Map
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[John F. Eldredge]

Dave Hansen  wrote:

> On 02/11/2013 08:34 AM, Michael Patrick wrote:
> > FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty
> cool,
> > one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter
> Expert! ;-)
> 
> While I admire the resourcefulness, I do question whether we're doing
> "the right thing" if we are trying to interpret the law in this way.
> We're obviously ill-equipped to do so ourselves.
> 
> I know the current turn restriction relations aren't suited for it.
> But, instead of tagging "left turn restriction from X to Y" shouldn't
> we
> be tagging "the pavement has an arrow that says left turn only"?
> 
> One of those requires interpretation and is subject to the law
> changing
> or being interpreted differently.  The other is only subject to change
> if someone goes out and scrapes the arrow off the pavement.
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Well, you are then placing the burden of interpreting the legal meaning of the 
markings on the person who writes the routing software, and who may not even 
live in the country in question.  I think the combination of a local mapper, 
and, if necessary, checking with the government department regulating such 
matters, as was done in this case, is better than the method you proposed.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Dave Hansen]

On 02/11/2013 08:34 AM, Michael Patrick wrote:
> FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool,
> one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-)

While I admire the resourcefulness, I do question whether we're doing
"the right thing" if we are trying to interpret the law in this way.
We're obviously ill-equipped to do so ourselves.

I know the current turn restriction relations aren't suited for it.
But, instead of tagging "left turn restriction from X to Y" shouldn't we
be tagging "the pavement has an arrow that says left turn only"?

One of those requires interpretation and is subject to the law changing
or being interpreted differently.  The other is only subject to change
if someone goes out and scrapes the arrow off the pavement.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Michael Patrick]

FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool,
one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-)

Michael

-- Forwarded message --
From: FHP 
Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing
To: Michael Patrick 


 Dear Michael,

** **

Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is:

** **

The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive.  

** **

The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.* 

** **

Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left
Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your
scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight
across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right
turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the
roadway.

** **

Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be
entering, has a *solid white line* on both sides of the lane which means
that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change
lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to
enter the lane at that location.

** **

The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47:

** **

*Solid White Line*

A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes
of traffic moving in the

same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this
line, but you should

not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard.

** **

Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. 

** **

*Customer Service Center*

*Correspondence/Email Unit*

*Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles*

*www.flhsmv.gov***

** **


The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to
Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in
all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer
service survey at *https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.*

**


  *From:* Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM
*To:* FHP
*Subject:* Legal Intersection Crossing

** **

We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. 

** **

What is contested: 

** **

The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off
ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.***
*

See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing
 )

** **

The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive.  This is shown as the
red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing)


** **

This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the
off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane.
Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp.

See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing)


** **

Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the
gore markers in the intersection.

BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing)


** **

Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound
at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three
lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive
ramp. 

BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing)


** **

After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's
Manual, etc. we were unable to make a conclusion. **

** **

Thank you for your time and consideration,

** **

Michael Patrick

Open Street Map

http://www.openstreetmap.org/

** **

** **
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14989711
> >
> > NE2 has ignored the discussion intentionally and reverted against
> consensus.
>
> You can't manufacture consensus by refusing to allow those in
> disagreement from participating in the discussion.
>

He brought that on himself with full knowledge of the consequences.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[John F. Eldredge]

"Bill R. WASHBURN"  wrote:

> After viewing the satellite imagery for this intersection, it is clear
> to
> me that the turn testifying should be in place. Were the same
> intersection
> in Georgia,  a driver going straight across could be charged with
> "Failure
> to obey a traffic control device" (with the traffic control devices in
> question being the left turn only arrow and the gore markings. Any
> Florida
> traffic law experts on here?
> 
> By reverting this (twice now?), NE2 has committed vandalism, in my
> opinion.
> Could we now get DWG involved and get a ban hammer swinging?
> 
> Bill R. WASHBURN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

I agree with both the comment about the turn restrictions and the comment about 
NE2 having committed vandalism.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Bill R. WASHBURN]

After viewing the satellite imagery for this intersection, it is clear to
me that the turn testifying should be in place. Were the same intersection
in Georgia,  a driver going straight across could be charged with "Failure
to obey a traffic control device" (with the traffic control devices in
question being the left turn only arrow and the gore markings. Any Florida
traffic law experts on here?

By reverting this (twice now?), NE2 has committed vandalism, in my opinion.
Could we now get DWG involved and get a ban hammer swinging?

Bill R. WASHBURN
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Nick Hocking]

It may be that what is happening is that NE2 is deliberately trying to
start an edit war so that he will be allowed back onto this list to discuss
it.

If, as seems to be the case, the bulk of his edits are destructive and need
to be reverted, then the sensible thing to do may be to put an auto revert
bot in for him. This would protect the OSM database and allow people to
just ignore him. Or, the  more sensible thing would be just to ban him from
editing.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14989711

NE2 has ignored the discussion intentionally and reverted against consensus.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
>
>> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
>> Leave it there.
>>
>
> Done.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Wait, what?  It's clearly part of the same intersection.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
> >>
> >> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
> >> Leave it there.
> >
> >
> > Done.
> >
> Now put the split for the off-ramp at a point after the logical
> intersection. :)
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Anthony]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
>>
>> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
>> Leave it there.
>
>
> Done.
>
Now put the split for the off-ramp at a point after the logical intersection. :)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
> Leave it there.
>

Done.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

Paul Johnson writes:
 > Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's manual,
 > the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain it
 > still doesn't work.

Mercy, Jesus, Mary, Mother of God!! I can't believe we're arguing the
minutia of Florida traffic law here!

What is the conservative approach? What is least likely to get someone
a ticket or get them in an accident? What do most drivers do at this
intersection? There's no sign? But there are road markings.

Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
Leave it there.

And Paul? For the love of God, stay out of Florida. Don't kick the
bear and then wonder why he's biting you.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Dale Puch]

"For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
also is, in total, harmful to the project."

Agreed.

NE2 may need to be banned, or may be valuable to OSM  It should not be
decided here, but by a formal procedure.

My insight in this from past discussions and interaction is that NE2 has to
be "beaten over the head with incontrovertible evidence" before he is
willing to back down.   The problem is he isn't offering similar evidence
to begin with, and refuses to give other users views similar weight to his
own.

Regarding the restriction in question.  As mentioned it would be illegal
based on not using the innermost lane, and crossing a solid traffic line.
Note that the on-ramp turn lane is the only one with a solid line from
where traffic has to stop.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bill R. WASHBURN wrote:

> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending NE2, one of Ian's points is
> that NE2 is banned from the list and that discussing this, here, does not
> allow ALL of the parties in the case to be involved in the discussion.
>
> One of the things that we need is a formal and transparent grievance
> process to correct poor behavior (and to build cases for banishment, when
> appropriate). In this case, it seems likely to me that the remediation
> process would have been resisted and the mediators, themselves, would have
> had their own case(s).
>
> For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
> and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
> NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
> be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
> situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
> also is, in total, harmful to the project.
>
> Add a side note, I actually do think that the idea of putting changeset
> approval processes in on new accounts and as a remediation measure in cases
> like NE2's is a fantastic idea. This would give the community an
> opportunity to prevent newbie mistakes from making it to the published map,
> correcting their newbie edit errors for a few edits until it's clear that
> they get the swing of things, and for sending rogue editors back to
> get-along-with-the-community school.
>
> Bill, aka dygituljunky
> On Feb 10, 2013 1:57 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>>
>>> If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact
>>> the mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so
>>> that it doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.
>>>
>>
>> Could we get the DWG in on this thread?  Enough members of this project
>> are involved in this issue that having this discussion in public where all
>> parties concerned can by a part of the discussion, or at least see the
>> thought process on the DWG's part, that it would be a disservice to hide
>> this in an ivory tower.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dale Puch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Yes, because it also says not to change lanes.  Also, it says you can only
cross a solid lane line to avoid a hazard.  I'm seeing more ways to
interpret what's going on as not allowing the ramp-to-ramp movement than
those allowing it to the point where you'd pretty much have to be making
the argument for argument's sake (ie, NE2's MO) to not see this as obvious.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> So you read the part where it specifically says you can complete the
> turn using any lane lawfully available, and you're still holding that
> you have to complete the turn using the left-most lane?
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > The same one.  It also says to look at the diagram for examples, and
> shows
> > turns into the nearest available lane.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> >>
> >> Heh, by the way, I just looked at the 2012 Florida Driver's Handbook
> >> (page 32).  It explicitly says "A left turn may be completed in any
> >> lane lawfully available, or safe, for the desired direction of
> >> travel."
> >>
> >> I'm not sure which driver's manual you were looking at.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> >> > "You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in Florida,"  No.
> >> > While the broader point is arguable, what you said there is absolutely
> >> > wrong.
> >> >
> >> > "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection
> >> > shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully
> >> > available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such
> >> > vehicle, and, after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be
> >> > made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to
> >> > traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered."
> >> >
> >> > (
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.151.html
> )
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Paul Johnson 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's
> >> >> manual,
> >> >> the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain
> it
> >> >> still
> >> >> doesn't work.  You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in
> >> >> Florida,
> >> >> no lane changes permitted in the intersection.  You can only turn
> left
> >> >> into
> >> >> the farthest left lane without changing lanes in the intersection.
> >> >> It's on
> >> >> page 30 of the Florida driver's manual.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Russ Nelson 
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
> >> >>> traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then
> a
> >> >>> quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of
> traffic,
> >> >>> he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so
> it
> >> >>> seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he
> thinks
> >> >>> are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Paul Johnson writes:
> >> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there
> >> >>> preventing
> >> >>> a
> >> >>>  > straight-on movement?
> >> >>>  >
> >> >>>  >
> >> >>>  > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>  >
> >> >>>  > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600<
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600>
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > > richard
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > > __**_
> >> >>>  > > Talk-us mailing list
> >> >>>  > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn
> only
> >> >>> arrow there preventing a straight-on movement? >> >>> class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10,
> >> >>> 2013 at
> >> >>> 5:09 PM, Richard Welty < >> >>> href="mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net";
> >> >>> target="_blank">rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote:
> >> >>>  > NE2 asked me to
> >> >>> share this
> >> >>> diary entry with the list:
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  >  >> >>> href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600";
> >> >>>
> >> >>> target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/
> user/NE2/diary/18600 >> >>> class="HOEnZb">
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  > richard
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  > ___
> >> >>>  > Talk-us mailing list
> >> >>>  > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org";
> >> >>> target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >> >>>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us";
> >> >>>
> >>

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 18:22 -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
> The point behind turn restrictions is that a routing algorithm is
> going to be looking for them to create a route.

And I think this is enough reason that the turn restriction should stay;
I wouldn't want directions to include it and I doubt most of the users
would either. Remember, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

The same one.  It also says to look at the diagram for examples, and shows
turns into the nearest available lane.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> Heh, by the way, I just looked at the 2012 Florida Driver's Handbook
> (page 32).  It explicitly says "A left turn may be completed in any
> lane lawfully available, or safe, for the desired direction of
> travel."
>
> I'm not sure which driver's manual you were looking at.
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> > "You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in Florida,"  No.
> > While the broader point is arguable, what you said there is absolutely
> > wrong.
> >
> > "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection
> > shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully
> > available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such
> > vehicle, and, after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be
> > made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to
> > traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered."
> > (
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.151.html
> )
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> >> Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's
> manual,
> >> the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain it
> still
> >> doesn't work.  You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in
> Florida,
> >> no lane changes permitted in the intersection.  You can only turn left
> into
> >> the farthest left lane without changing lanes in the intersection.
>  It's on
> >> page 30 of the Florida driver's manual.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
> >>> traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then a
> >>> quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of traffic,
> >>> he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so it
> >>> seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.
> >>>
> >>> But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he thinks
> >>> are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?
> >>>
> >>> Paul Johnson writes:
> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there
> preventing
> >>> a
> >>>  > straight-on movement?
> >>>  >
> >>>  >
> >>>  > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty
> >>> wrote:
> >>>  >
> >>>  > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600<
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600>
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > richard
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > __**_
> >>>  > > Talk-us mailing list
> >>>  > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >>>  > >
> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only
> >>> arrow there preventing a straight-on movement? >>> class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10,
> 2013 at
> >>> 5:09 PM, Richard Welty < >>> href="mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net";
> >>> target="_blank">rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote:
> >>>  > NE2 asked me to
> share this
> >>> diary entry with the list:
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600";
> >>> target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/
> user/NE2/diary/18600 >>> class="HOEnZb">
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > richard
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > ___
> >>>  > Talk-us mailing list
> >>>  > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org";
> >>> target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >>>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us";
> >>> target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap
> .org/listinfo/talk-us
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > ___
> >>>  > Talk-us mailing list
> >>>  > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >>>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Talk-us mailing list
> >>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-us mailing list
> >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's manual,
the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain it
still doesn't work.  You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in
Florida, no lane changes permitted in the intersection.  You can only turn
left into the farthest left lane without changing lanes in the
intersection.  It's on page 30 of the Florida driver's manual.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
> traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then a
> quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of traffic,
> he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so it
> seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.
>
> But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he thinks
> are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?
>
> Paul Johnson writes:
>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing
> a
>  > straight-on movement?
>  >
>  >
>  > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty  >wrote:
>  >
>  > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
>  > >
>  > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600<
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600>
>  > >
>  > > richard
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > __**_
>  > > Talk-us mailing list
>  > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>  > > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>  > >
>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only
> arrow there preventing a straight-on movement? class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10, 2013
> at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty 
> wrote:
>  > NE2 asked me to share
> this diary entry with the list:
>  > 
>  > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600";
> target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600 class="HOEnZb">
>  > 
>  > richard
>  > 
>  > 
>  > ___
>  > Talk-us mailing list
>  > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org"; target="_blank">
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us";
> target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap
> .org/listinfo/talk-us
>  > 
>  > ___
>  > Talk-us mailing list
>  > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then a
quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of traffic,
he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so it
seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.

But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he thinks
are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?

Paul Johnson writes:
 > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing a
 > straight-on movement?
 > 
 > 
 > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
 > 
 > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
 > >
 > > 
 > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600
 > >
 > > richard
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > __**_
 > > Talk-us mailing list
 > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 > > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
 > >
 > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow 
 > there preventing a straight-on movement? class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 
 > 5:09 PM, Richard Welty < href="mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net"; 
 > target="_blank">rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote:
 > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the 
 > list:
 > 
 >             http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600"; 
 > target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600  class="HOEnZb">
 > 
 > richard
 > 
 > 
 > ___
 > Talk-us mailing list
 > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org"; 
 > target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us"; 
 > target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 > 
 > ___
 > Talk-us mailing list
 > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

The question isn't whether or not it's popular.  It's popular to drive the
wrong way on one-way streets or left of the centerlines in Portland.  But
that doesn't make it legal.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:21 PM, James Mast wrote:

>  Well, if you do look at the imagery, it seems that's a popular moment to
> go straight there from ramp to ramp.  There are several tire marks proving
> people do it a lot.
>
> --James
>
> --
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:12:15 -0600
> From: ba...@ursamundi.org
>
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
>
> So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing a
> straight-on movement?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
> NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
>
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600>
>
> richard
>
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>
>
>
> ___ Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

Richard Welty writes:
 > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
 > 
 >  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600

That's interesting, but I'll note three things:
  o the tire tracks with one exception turn left, and
  o the one set of tire tracks that goes "left"-right was left by a
car skidding its tires, implying that the movement was done
surreptitiously, in haste.
  o There are fewer things you can do when a policeman is watching
than not.

The point behind turn restrictions is that a routing algorithm is
going to be looking for them to create a route. While it's fine that
NE2 is willing to make that turn on a lazy Sunday, would he send his
mother that way?

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Mike N]

On 2/10/2013 6:12 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing
a straight-on movement?


 I would just observe that the red line can be seen as a large version 
of the white left turn arrow above it.(Other than that, no opinion).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[James Mast]

> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:51:43 -0500
> From: dygitulju...@gmail.com
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
> 
> > At the risk of sounding like I'm defending NE2, one of Ian's points is that 
> > NE2 is banned from the list and that discussing this, here, does not allow 
> > ALL of the parties in the case to be involved in the discussion.

> One of the things that we need is a formal and transparent grievance process 
> to correct poor behavior (and to build cases for banishment, when 
> appropriate). In this case, it seems likely to me that the remediation 
> process would have been resisted and the mediators, themselves, would > have 
> had their own case(s).

> For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process, and 
> for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action, NE2 
> must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must be able 
> to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present situation isn't 
> fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation also is, in total, 
> harmful to the project.

 I'll second this.  If you want to ban somebody in this project, you should t 
least give them a chance to defend themselves.  This isn't a guy posting porn 
on a forum visited by children (who should always be banned).  He is doing 
useful edits.  In fact, as of late, he's been doing a lot of work twinning 
highways that need it in Florida.  We don't have as enough people as we need to 
get all highways that are divided twinned here in the USA. --James 
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing a
straight-on movement?


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

> NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
>
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600
>
> richard
>
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Richard Welty]

NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600

richard


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Bill R. WASHBURN]

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending NE2, one of Ian's points is that
NE2 is banned from the list and that discussing this, here, does not allow
ALL of the parties in the case to be involved in the discussion.

One of the things that we need is a formal and transparent grievance
process to correct poor behavior (and to build cases for banishment, when
appropriate). In this case, it seems likely to me that the remediation
process would have been resisted and the mediators, themselves, would have
had their own case(s).

For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
also is, in total, harmful to the project.

Add a side note, I actually do think that the idea of putting changeset
approval processes in on new accounts and as a remediation measure in cases
like NE2's is a fantastic idea. This would give the community an
opportunity to prevent newbie mistakes from making it to the published map,
correcting their newbie edit errors for a few edits until it's clear that
they get the swing of things, and for sending rogue editors back to
get-along-with-the-community school.

Bill, aka dygituljunky
On Feb 10, 2013 1:57 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
>> If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact the
>> mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so that it
>> doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.
>>
>
> Could we get the DWG in on this thread?  Enough members of this project
> are involved in this issue that having this discussion in public where all
> parties concerned can by a part of the discussion, or at least see the
> thought process on the DWG's part, that it would be a disservice to hide
> this in an ivory tower.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Nathan Mills]

On 2/10/2013 10:32 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:

So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
because of him. How many other people have made the same decision? How
much worse is OSM because of NE2? Does this outweigh his positive
accomplishments?


I don't think I'm the only person who decided to basically stop 
contributing and do other things that don't involve butting heads with 
people who think they know ground truth better than people who have 
actually been there.


-Nathan

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact the
> mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so that it
> doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.
>

Could we get the DWG in on this thread?  Enough members of this project are
involved in this issue that having this discussion in public where all
parties concerned can by a part of the discussion, or at least see the
thought process on the DWG's part, that it would be a disservice to hide
this in an ivory tower.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
> people. For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
> work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
> pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
> I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.
>

Which was the thrust of my interaction in private messaging that I was
trying to get at when I referenced a vacuum.  "Never argue with a fool, for
they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."  NE2
is demonstrably quite experienced at that.


> So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
> because of him. How many other people have made the same decision?
>

I know I have, particularly since I returned to Oklahoma and now spent far
more time collecting GPX tracks and bugfixing than actively editing just
due to the level of effort required.

How much worse is OSM because of NE2? Does this outweigh his positive
> accomplishments?
>

We'll never know on the former, but I think the Archives will hear me out
when I say we're wasting some *serious* man-hours debating this issue once
a quarter.  Any other organization other than, perhaps, some rather poorly
run fandom conventions, would have ditched him a while ago now.  Honestly,
the only other way I can think of to handle such a situation is going to a
more Google Maps style verified edits model where Someone Else has to
"second" every edit anybody makes.  I highly doubt we want to do that
simply to keep a single contributor involved.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.
>
> NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
> well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
> only his) vision of the world.
>

There's still a lot of ways incorrectly tagged trunk from when he carried
out such a threat to mass-retag everything in route=road; network=US:US as
trunk (even when the vast majority of these aren't expressways, even if
they are the primary route).


> Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
> has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
> particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
> explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
> OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
> his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
> damned) is just unacceptable.
>

And given that this situation hasn't changed over time, I believe this will
continue to be the case indefinitely.  The ball is in our court.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Ian Dees]

Hi all,

This thread is getting unproductive and crossing into personal attacks.
Please consider if talk-us is the best place to talk about one person
behind essentially behind their back.

If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact the
mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so that it
doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.

Remember that there are lots of people that get these messages and what
might appear as defense of the project to the vocal minority might look
extreme and intimidating to the quiet majority that want to participate.

-Ian (as a talk-us moderator)


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
>
> > His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
> > people.
>
> Furthermore, he makes mass edits. There are not edits that one can
> accomplish simply by hand. He is doing many thousands of edits, and we
> have evidence that this must be automated. He ignores local mappers,
> local edits, and insists that he's right (with edits) even when told
> by on the ground mappers that he's wrong).
>
> So what we have is someone running around, bullying the mappers, and
> running bots on the system.
>
> > For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
> > work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
> > pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
> > I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.
>
> > So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
> > because of him. How many other people have made the same decision?
>
> From my interactions with mappers, more than a few.
>
> And these are just the mappers who have talked to me about it.
>
> > How much worse is OSM because of NE2?
>
> Have people here read The No Asshole Rule? In this book, the author
> outlines how bad behavior (bullying especially) is not neutral, but
> had major negative impacts on workplaces.
>
> NE2 is a bully, plain and simple, and his impacts are felt throughout
> the community.
>
> To answer others questions, we have banned others, mostly temporarily.
> It is an extreme action that the community has taken in order to bring
> the seriousness of a situation to light.
>
> In my view, those who are the defending NE2 the most are the ones who
> have dealt with him the least.
>
> OSM should not be Mad Max, or a cowboy environment, and by allowing
> "assholes" to be allowed to bully communities, we are making the
> problem worse.
>
> - Serge
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
> people.

Furthermore, he makes mass edits. There are not edits that one can
accomplish simply by hand. He is doing many thousands of edits, and we
have evidence that this must be automated. He ignores local mappers,
local edits, and insists that he's right (with edits) even when told
by on the ground mappers that he's wrong).

So what we have is someone running around, bullying the mappers, and
running bots on the system.

> For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
> work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
> pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
> I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.

> So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
> because of him. How many other people have made the same decision?

>From my interactions with mappers, more than a few.

And these are just the mappers who have talked to me about it.

> How much worse is OSM because of NE2?

Have people here read The No Asshole Rule? In this book, the author
outlines how bad behavior (bullying especially) is not neutral, but
had major negative impacts on workplaces.

NE2 is a bully, plain and simple, and his impacts are felt throughout
the community.

To answer others questions, we have banned others, mostly temporarily.
It is an extreme action that the community has taken in order to bring
the seriousness of a situation to light.

In my view, those who are the defending NE2 the most are the ones who
have dealt with him the least.

OSM should not be Mad Max, or a cowboy environment, and by allowing
"assholes" to be allowed to bully communities, we are making the
problem worse.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

Michal Migurski writes:
 > I'm familiar with his work and have run afoul of his views in the
 > past, most recently when I performed a large scale edit to US route
 > relation tags, some of which he did not agree with. I don't know if
 > any were reverted. Nevertheless, I don't see the value in running
 > him out on a rail without more actual evidence of malice, detailed
 > precedents from other bans, and some expectation that the OSMF
 > could help here. These days I'm happier with NE2 than I am with the
 > foundation, believe it or not.

His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
people. For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.

So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
because of him. How many other people have made the same decision? How
much worse is OSM because of NE2? Does this outweigh his positive
accomplishments?

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Anthony]

I would suggest inviting him back on the mailing lists, with the
knowledge that being banned from the mailing lists means being banned
from OSM.

This situation where he is allowed to edit, but he isn't allowed to
join the mailing lists to discuss his edits, is an utter failure.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:30 AM, stevea  wrote:
> Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or
> even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is "be civil" and
> "use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss."  There are
> plenty of other "consensus understandings" that might be loosely called
> "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again
> proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.
> Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of
> permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior
> can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually being
> permanently banned.  He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I
> am not optimistic he will be around much longer.  But if the community wants
> him, that can emerge as a consensus as well.
>
> His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the
> usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy,
> which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that reason
> alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to ban
> him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we need
> somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult contributors.
> I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least.
>
> I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
>
>> He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
>> him to discuss this issue here.
>>
>> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
>> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
>> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
>> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
>> he were gone.
>>
>> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
>> -russ

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Randal Hale]

+ 4 to what Mike said. What is the precedent from other bans? Is there a 
wiki page of bannination?


Randy

Randal Hale, GISP
North River Geographic Systems, Inc
http://www.northrivergeographic.com
423.653.3611 rjh...@northrivergeographic.com
twitter:rjhale
http://about.me/rjhale

On 02/10/2013 11:04 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:

I'm familiar with his work and have run afoul of his views in the past, most 
recently when I performed a large scale edit to US route relation tags, some of 
which he did not agree with. I don't know if any were reverted. Nevertheless, I 
don't see the value in running him out on a rail without more actual evidence 
of malice, detailed precedents from other bans, and some expectation that the 
OSMF could help here. These days I'm happier with NE2 than I am with the 
foundation, believe it or not.

-mike.

---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com

On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski  wrote:

I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.

Mike,

Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.

NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
only his) vision of the world.

I realize that from a numerical standpoint, it may seem like he is a
positive contributor, but this is due to our general acceptance of
people even in the face of disagreement. But in NE2's case, he is a
bully, and having a bully does not serve the community well.

Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
damned) is just unacceptable.

It's understandable that if you are not familiar with NE2's behavior
first hand, that you would see this as a a misunderstanding, but NE2's
behavior has been damaging to the project for so long that we simply
have no choice but to take actions to protect the project's
cohesiveness.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Michal Migurski]

I'm familiar with his work and have run afoul of his views in the past, most 
recently when I performed a large scale edit to US route relation tags, some of 
which he did not agree with. I don't know if any were reverted. Nevertheless, I 
don't see the value in running him out on a rail without more actual evidence 
of malice, detailed precedents from other bans, and some expectation that the 
OSMF could help here. These days I'm happier with NE2 than I am with the 
foundation, believe it or not. 

-mike.

---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com

On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski  wrote:
>> I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
>> valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
>> like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.
> 
> NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
> well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
> only his) vision of the world.
> 
> I realize that from a numerical standpoint, it may seem like he is a
> positive contributor, but this is due to our general acceptance of
> people even in the face of disagreement. But in NE2's case, he is a
> bully, and having a bully does not serve the community well.
> 
> Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
> has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
> particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
> explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
> OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
> his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
> damned) is just unacceptable.
> 
> It's understandable that if you are not familiar with NE2's behavior
> first hand, that you would see this as a a misunderstanding, but NE2's
> behavior has been damaging to the project for so long that we simply
> have no choice but to take actions to protect the project's
> cohesiveness.
> 
> - Serge
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski  wrote:
> I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
> valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
> like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.

Mike,

Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.

NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
only his) vision of the world.

I realize that from a numerical standpoint, it may seem like he is a
positive contributor, but this is due to our general acceptance of
people even in the face of disagreement. But in NE2's case, he is a
bully, and having a bully does not serve the community well.

Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
damned) is just unacceptable.

It's understandable that if you are not familiar with NE2's behavior
first hand, that you would see this as a a misunderstanding, but NE2's
behavior has been damaging to the project for so long that we simply
have no choice but to take actions to protect the project's
cohesiveness.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Serge Wroclawski]

This issue has come up before and the problem is that it "falls
through the cracks" of OSM's governing bodies.

The DWG often handles issues of vandalism or copyright violation, but
NE2's edits are neither obvious vandalism, nor direct copyright
violations as far as anyone can tell.

But this type of behavior has been identified as damaging to the
community on numerous occasions and in several ways.

The issue here is that unlike others, NE2's behavior always rides a
more delicate line.

Nonetheless, I think it's time we step up as a community and request
OSMF assistance on this issue.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Richard Welty]

On 2/10/13 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:

I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.

i'm with mike. while i, like many, have butted heads with NE2 in the 
past and no doubt will
do so in the future, he has made a lot of valuable contributions. in 
this particular case,
the turn restriction has a direct bearing on routing and so fits in with 
something he has

been working hard at.

his main weaknesses are twofold:

1) he armchair maps a lot and doesn't play well with local mappers

2) related to the latter, he seems to be fairly antisocial in his 
interactions

with others in the community. the oft impersonal nature of email
doesn't help much with this.

he has gotten better over the past several years, but i suspect he still
doesn't really connect to the rest of us as people rather than usernames
and handles. i find myself wishing he would attend an SOTM US or something
like that, not because of the talks, but for the opportunity to sit down
with a bunch of committed mappers over a couple of beers.

the issue of any sort of temporary or permanent ban defaults, i believe,
in the hands of the DWG (Data Working Group), and i understand that
they haven't really ever been given a clear cut case in one of these 
disputes.


richard


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Michal Migurski]

I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
like this, and I'm not eager to see one set. 

-mike.

---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com

On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:30 PM, stevea  wrote:

> Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or 
> even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is "be civil" and "use 
> the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss."  There are 
> plenty of other "consensus understandings" that might be loosely called 
> "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again proven 
> that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.  Consequently, I 
> think we should inform him that serious discussion of permanently banning him 
> from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior can either change for 
> the better, or he can count on eventually being permanently banned.  He has 
> had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I am not optimistic he will be 
> around much longer.  But if the community wants him, that can emerge as a 
> consensus as well.
> 
> His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the 
> usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy, which 
> is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that reason alone 
> (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to ban him, speak 
> up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we need somebody like 
> him as an example of what to do with difficult contributors.  I think it is 
> unanimous that he is that, at least.
> 
> I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.
> 
> SteveA
> California
> 
> 
>> He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
>> him to discuss this issue here.
>> 
>> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
>> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
>> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
>> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
>> he were gone.
>> 
>> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
>> -russ
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Kathleen Danielson]

Out of curiosity, is asking someone to leave the project something that we
have done before? I'm wondering what kind of precedents we've set for
ourself. I am only vaguely familiar with the circumstances around this user
being removed from the list, so I'm curious about the decision to ban
someone from the list while still allowing him or her to make edits, even
though they can no longer participate in public discourse. I'm certainly
not trying to suggest that it was the "wrong" decision, just mentioning my
curiosity.
On Feb 10, 2013 12:31 AM, "stevea"  wrote:

> Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or
> even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is "be civil" and
> "use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss."  There
> are plenty of other "consensus understandings" that might be loosely called
> "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again
> proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.
>  Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of
> permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his
> behavior can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually
> being permanently banned.  He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and
> so I am not optimistic he will be around much longer.  But if the community
> wants him, that can emerge as a consensus as well.
>
> His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the
> usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy,
> which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that
> reason alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to
> ban him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we
> need somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult
> contributors.  I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least.
>
> I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
>  He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
>> him to discuss this issue here.
>>
>> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
>> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
>> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
>> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
>> he were gone.
>>
>> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
>> -russ
>>
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[stevea]

Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a 
second, or even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is 
"be civil" and "use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum 
to discuss."  There are plenty of other "consensus understandings" 
that might be loosely called "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM 
as a community.  NE2 has again proven that he is either unwilling or 
unable to abide by those.  Consequently, I think we should inform him 
that serious discussion of permanently banning him from OSM (this 
thread) is underway, and his behavior can either change for the 
better, or he can count on eventually being permanently banned.  He 
has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I am not optimistic 
he will be around much longer.  But if the community wants him, that 
can emerge as a consensus as well.


His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to 
the usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir 
controversy, which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. 
If, for that reason alone (that he is controversial), there are those 
who do not wish to ban him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to 
make the case that we need somebody like him as an example of what to 
do with difficult contributors.  I think it is unanimous that he is 
that, at least.


I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.

SteveA
California



He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
him to discuss this issue here.

We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
he were gone.

I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
-russ


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

If that really is the case and he's not welcome to participate in the list,
then I agree, it's time for him to find another hobby.  Seconded.


On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
> him to discuss this issue here.
>
> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
> he were gone.
>
> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
> -russ
>
> Paul Johnson writes:
>  > A minor update, since NE2 refuses to handle this as a community:
>  >
>  > Me: I'm no longer accepting input on this outside of the mailing list.
> If
>  > you want to have any further opinion on this, post to the thread in
>  > talk-us.
>  > NE2: You know I can't do that. By refusing to discuss you forfeit.
>  > Me: I'm not going to have this discussion with you someplace you can
>  > unilaterally
>  > declare victory independently in a vaccuum, that isn't how OpenStreetMap
>  > works. You need to follow the thread and sort out your differences with
> the
>  > moderators.
>  >
>  > Again, since the consensus is this restriction is a valid one despite
> what
>  > NE2 is suggesting, I intend to revert the deletion.  Not sure who our
>  > dispute management authorities are these days (since I'm not sure it's
> DWG
>  > or not), but I'd like to know how to keep them in the loop on this.
>  >
>  >
>  > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Apollinaris Schöll  >wrote:
>  >
>  > > I looked a bit more and in many jurisdiction it's illegal anyway to go
>  > > around a traffic jam  by exiting a freeway and go back direct on the
> next
>  > > onramp. Even more reason to have a restriction. Tested Google maps
> and it
>  > > will make a big detour to avoid this illegal straight on.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >> Good point, though was hoping someone in the Orlando area other than
> NE2
>  > >> could weigh in (since this is a rare example of me chasing a Mapdust
> bug
>  > >> out to his area).
>  > >>
>  > >>
>  > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Apollinaris Schöll <
> ascho...@gmail.com>wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >>>
>  > >>>
>  > >>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson  >wrote:
>  > >>>
>  >  NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a
>  >  ruling on this relation before I revert:
>  >  http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
>  > 
>  >  Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
>  >  Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only
> markings on
>  >  the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a
> straight-on
>  >  movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the
> excuse
>  >  that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot
> recall
>  >  having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not
> seen any
>  >  such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the
> left
>  >  turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned
> the legal
>  >  standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact
> that
>  >  section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires
> ONLY to be
>  >  omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a
> straight/left arrow
>  >  would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
>  > 
>  >  Who's right?
>  > 
>  > 
>  > >>> You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to
> challenge
>  > >>> his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and
> wins
>  > >>> the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction.
>  > >>> And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across
> tons of
>  > >>> crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even
> consider
>  > >>> to contact him.
>  > >>>
>  > >>>
>  >  ___
>  >  Talk-us mailing list
>  >  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>  >  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>  > 
>  > 
>  > >>>
>  > >>
>  > >
>  > A minor update,
> since NE2 refuses to handle this as a community: style="font-family:'Helvetica
> Neue',Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:23px">
>  > Me:
> I'm no longer accepting input on this outside of the mailing list. If
> you want to have any further opinion on this, post to the thread in
> talk-us. 
>  > NE2: You know I
> can't do that. By refusing to discuss you forfeit. style> style="font-size:14px;line-height:23px">Me:  style="font-family:'Helvetica
> Neue',Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:23px">I'm not
> going to have this discussion with you somepla

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
him to discuss this issue here.

We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
he were gone.

I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
-russ

Paul Johnson writes:
 > A minor update, since NE2 refuses to handle this as a community:
 > 
 > Me: I'm no longer accepting input on this outside of the mailing list. If
 > you want to have any further opinion on this, post to the thread in
 > talk-us.
 > NE2: You know I can't do that. By refusing to discuss you forfeit.
 > Me: I'm not going to have this discussion with you someplace you can
 > unilaterally
 > declare victory independently in a vaccuum, that isn't how OpenStreetMap
 > works. You need to follow the thread and sort out your differences with the
 > moderators.
 > 
 > Again, since the consensus is this restriction is a valid one despite what
 > NE2 is suggesting, I intend to revert the deletion.  Not sure who our
 > dispute management authorities are these days (since I'm not sure it's DWG
 > or not), but I'd like to know how to keep them in the loop on this.
 > 
 > 
 > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:
 > 
 > > I looked a bit more and in many jurisdiction it's illegal anyway to go
 > > around a traffic jam  by exiting a freeway and go back direct on the next
 > > onramp. Even more reason to have a restriction. Tested Google maps and it
 > > will make a big detour to avoid this illegal straight on.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
 > >
 > >> Good point, though was hoping someone in the Orlando area other than NE2
 > >> could weigh in (since this is a rare example of me chasing a Mapdust bug
 > >> out to his area).
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Apollinaris Schöll 
 > >> wrote:
 > >>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
 > >>>
 >  NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a
 >  ruling on this relation before I revert:
 >  http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
 > 
 >  Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
 >  Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
 >  the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
 >  movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
 >  that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
 >  having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen 
 >  any
 >  such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
 >  turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the 
 >  legal
 >  standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
 >  section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY 
 >  to be
 >  omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left 
 >  arrow
 >  would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
 > 
 >  Who's right?
 > 
 > 
 > >>> You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge
 > >>> his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins
 > >>> the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction.
 > >>> And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of
 > >>> crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even 
 > >>> consider
 > >>> to contact him.
 > >>>
 > >>>
 >  ___
 >  Talk-us mailing list
 >  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 >  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 > 
 > 
 > >>>
 > >>
 > >
 > A minor update, 
 > since NE2 refuses to handle this as a community: style="font-family:'Helvetica 
 > Neue',Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:23px">
 > Me:
 >  I'm no longer accepting input on this outside of the mailing list. If 
 > you want to have any further opinion on this, post to the thread in talk-us. 
 > 
 > NE2: You know I 
 > can't do that. By refusing to discuss you forfeit. style> style="font-size:14px;line-height:23px">Me:  style="font-family:'Helvetica 
 > Neue',Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:23px">I'm not 
 > going to have this discussion with you someplace you can style="font-family:'Helvetica 
 > Neue',Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:23px">  style="font-family:'Helvetica 
 > Neue',Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:23px">unilaterally 
 > declare victory independently in a vaccuum, that isn't how style="font-family:'Helvetica 
 > Neue',Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:23px">  style="font-family:'He

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

A minor update, since NE2 refuses to handle this as a community:

Me: I'm no longer accepting input on this outside of the mailing list. If
you want to have any further opinion on this, post to the thread in
talk-us.
NE2: You know I can't do that. By refusing to discuss you forfeit.
Me: I'm not going to have this discussion with you someplace you can
unilaterally
declare victory independently in a vaccuum, that isn't how OpenStreetMap
works. You need to follow the thread and sort out your differences with the
moderators.

Again, since the consensus is this restriction is a valid one despite what
NE2 is suggesting, I intend to revert the deletion.  Not sure who our
dispute management authorities are these days (since I'm not sure it's DWG
or not), but I'd like to know how to keep them in the loop on this.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:

> I looked a bit more and in many jurisdiction it's illegal anyway to go
> around a traffic jam  by exiting a freeway and go back direct on the next
> onramp. Even more reason to have a restriction. Tested Google maps and it
> will make a big detour to avoid this illegal straight on.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> Good point, though was hoping someone in the Orlando area other than NE2
>> could weigh in (since this is a rare example of me chasing a Mapdust bug
>> out to his area).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>
 NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a
 ruling on this relation before I revert:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811

 Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
 Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
 the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
 movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
 that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
 having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
 such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
 turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
 standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
 section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
 omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
 would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).

 Who's right?


>>> You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge
>>> his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins
>>> the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction.
>>> And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of
>>> crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even consider
>>> to contact him.
>>>
>>>
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


>>>
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Apollinaris Schöll]

I looked a bit more and in many jurisdiction it's illegal anyway to go
around a traffic jam  by exiting a freeway and go back direct on the next
onramp. Even more reason to have a restriction. Tested Google maps and it
will make a big detour to avoid this illegal straight on.



On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Good point, though was hoping someone in the Orlando area other than NE2
> could weigh in (since this is a rare example of me chasing a Mapdust bug
> out to his area).
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a ruling
>>> on this relation before I revert:
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
>>>
>>> Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
>>> Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
>>> the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
>>> movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
>>> that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
>>> having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
>>> such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
>>> turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
>>> standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
>>> section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
>>> omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
>>> would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
>>>
>>> Who's right?
>>>
>>>
>> You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge
>> his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins
>> the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction.
>> And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of
>> crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even consider
>> to contact him.
>>
>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Good point, though was hoping someone in the Orlando area other than NE2
could weigh in (since this is a rare example of me chasing a Mapdust bug
out to his area).


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a ruling
>> on this relation before I revert:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
>>
>> Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
>> Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
>> the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
>> movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
>> that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
>> having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
>> such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
>> turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
>> standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
>> section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
>> omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
>> would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
>>
>> Who's right?
>>
>>
> You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge
> his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins
> the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction.
> And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of
> crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even consider
> to contact him.
>
>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Apollinaris Schöll]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a ruling
> on this relation before I revert:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
>
> Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
> Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
> the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
> movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
> that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
> having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
> such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
> turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
> standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
> section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
> omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
> would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
>
> Who's right?
>
>
You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge
his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins
the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction.
And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of
crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even consider
to contact him.


> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Alright, assuming I don't get feedback to the contrary, I intend to revert
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14958467 later this weekend,
probably Sunday.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Clay Smalley  wrote:

> You. You have the ground truth. He has no right deleting useful data from
> OSM.
>
> I think it's a general rule that when NE2 fights with other OSM
> contributors, he loses.
> On Feb 8, 2013 2:59 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
>> NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a ruling
>> on this relation before I revert:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
>>
>> Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
>> Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
>> the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
>> movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
>> that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
>> having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
>> such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
>> turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
>> standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
>> section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
>> omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
>> would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
>>
>> Who's right?
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Clay Smalley]

You. You have the ground truth. He has no right deleting useful data from
OSM.

I think it's a general rule that when NE2 fights with other OSM
contributors, he loses.
On Feb 8, 2013 2:59 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:

> NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a ruling
> on this relation before I revert:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
>
> Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
> Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
> the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
> movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
> that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
> having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
> such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
> turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
> standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
> section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
> omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
> would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
>
> Who's right?
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us