I think I've tried to contact this user before. However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite problem, they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow cycling. I have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' , and I don't think I've seen a source referenced other than the iD bing imagery.
They also do a lot of path -> footway/cycleway changes, and I've seen them flip-flop those way types on ways they edited months before. This recent changeset reverts a shared footpath & cyclepath next to McClelland Drive to a footway. I know from going along there recently that it is a shared path. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110855931#map=16/-38.1286/145.1824 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/926500719/history I think a lot that they do is valid and useful, however sourcing is sometimes uncertain, the changeset comments are pointless, and there's many incorrect edits. Adam On Sat, 18 Sept 2021 at 22:40, <fors...@ozonline.com.au> wrote: > Hi > > I have commented at Changeset: 111016252 way 304507133 has been > changed from bicycle yes to bicycle no, I rode it today and saw no > signage indicating this, this changeset has 88 ways with the comment > "updates". A random survey shows lots of bicycle yes and designated > removed. Lots of changed tags. > > 9 changeset(s) created by HighRouleur have been discussed with a total > of 12 comment(s) - Replies by this contributor: 1 > > changeset comments are nearly all "updates" with no explanation > > Ill see if I get a reply > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
