Hi Andrew. Here is a summary of HighRouleur's edits since your DWG
ruling of Mon Oct 4.
Can you, representing the DWG, please persuade HighRouleur to conform
to community mapping practices.
Thanks Tony
Changeset: 112406847 12 October. Footpath incorrectly identified as
shared path. Changed to footpath as no signage was present to indicate
that it was a shared bicycle and footpath
HighRouleur was asked by both me and Marc Zoutendijk of the DWG to
revert this edit, there was no reply or reversion.
In Changeset: 112480318 and other communications HighRouleur was
offered the opportunity to assist with the clean up of his edits. He
declined to assist in the reversions.
Changeset: 113319147 3 Nov. Changed to footpath as no signage was
present to indicate that it was a shared bicycle and footpath. His
retagging of footpaths, shared paths and cycleways starts again one
month after the DWG ruling.
Changeset: 115461885 access changed to private as it is located on
private property and matches adjacent ways. A changeset comment from
Diacritic remains unreplied.
Changeset: 115626232 no path present
A comment from Bob42nd remains unreplied
Changeset: 115868863 7 January
My comment was Please stop undoing the reversions of your work. Please
comply with community tagging standards.
HighRouleur replied
Last year the DWG, made a decision, albeit an incorrect one in
relation to foothpaths
where I had set bicycle=no. I have abided by their decision and now
use footpaths with the default value as this does not permit bicycles.
In the end this yields the same result that I wanted.
28 Jan 21:31 (can't locate original)
I point out "your edits were referred to the DWG and they made a
ruling that did not support your position"
Changeset: 115869147 31 January
MatthewSeale commented : As noted on talk-au discussion on this topic
last year, the absence of cycling signs is not sufficient to confirm
that cycling is prohibited.
HighRouleur replied: The absence of a way being designated a shared
path means under Victorian law that it is only a footway.
Changeset: 116495624 (a quarry)
I comment can you please remove unnecessary bicycle=no
HighRouleur changes it to bicycle=private. This is not a good edit.
Its a quarry, its private to everything, the bicycle= tag should only
be used if bicycles are treated differently
Changeset: 116495708 private roads set to private
unreplied comment
Changeset: 116611891 26 Jan Changed to footpath as no signage was
present to indicate that it was a shared bicycle and footpath
Andrew Harvey representing the DWG comments
Hi Tony, HighRouleur, I'm investigating the dispute here with a fresh
set of eyes.
31 January Andrew Harvey (may be private message, I can't find the original)
Hi Tony,
I'm looking into the situation with a fresh set of eyes and trying to
remain neutral. In some instances it's not clear from available
sources, so I'm needing to ask for more information both from
HighRouler and from previous editors. While I understand your concern
around these changes I need to assess them on their own merits.
I (Tony) refrain from public commenting or posting to a large degree
to give Andrew time to consider. 31 January to 20 March.
Changeset: 117383192, 14 February. Road deleted as it appears to have
been dragged across the runway.
It would be better if HighRouleur was more respectful of others
mapping work. I mention this changeset because a comment to the
previous editor would have been more appropriate than a deletion.
Changeset: 117873889 26 February. private roads set to destination
dragged node, unreplied comment
Changeset 117935297 28 Feb shared paths changed to footpaths as no
signs present to indicated bikes are permitted.
highway=cycleway changed to fooway
Changeset: 117935483 28 Feb
shared path deleted as it doesn't join the roadway
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.877486111111&lng=145.07397222222&z=17&pKey=1430247097325568&focus=photo
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.87753055555603&lng=145.07424722222004&z=19.336078076486757&pKey=1295636494166189&focus=photo
This edit is at best marginal
You can legally cycle between Camino Terrace and Scotchmans Creek Trail
You can physically cycle between Camino Terrace and Scotchmans Creek Trail
but because of a kerb and a lack of 10cm of bitumen, he has deleted
the connection between these 2 ways.
Changeset: 118121820 5 March shared paths changed to footpaths as no
signs present to indicated bikes are permitted.
Way History: 680243305
In my opinion its just a path that could be equally used by cyclists
or pedestrians. It was fine as highway=path as mapped by timetotom 3
years ago. I think HighRouleur needs a better justification to change
the tagging.
Changeset: 118193819 7 march. private roads set to destination
Me: it is a gated community. The wiki says "Transit traffic forbidden"
for destination, I can't see any signage prohibiting transiting. What
did you base your decision on? Thanks Tony. Comment remains unreplied
Changeset: 118349311 11 March footpaths added
Way : 1001269053
Path changed to footway It might be a good edit, I do not know without
inspecting it,
Changeset: 118462215 14 March tracks on private property set to destination
Access = destination
He is tagging any road on private property access=destination, if this
is to be
consistent with the wiki definition he would need evidence of transit
being disallowed.
This example which is particularly silly is using this tag on an
isolated race track, transit is impossible, not disallowed.
Changeset: 118627943 18 March foothpaths incorrectly had permission
set to bicycle=yes.
footpaths reverted to default value.
Me: Did you visit location 671174716, v3 before you re-tagged it?
There is signage. There is even a note about the signage. The comment
remains unreplied and the edit unreverted.
Changeset: 117935408 28 February
See Comment from MatthewSeale
Service roads, lanes and parking aisles . HighRouleur has made many
changes which may be
OK. I haven't checked them.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
