Hi Sebastian
Thanks for participating in this discussion.
You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly
permitted without signage".
This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step
with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly
permitted without signage.
I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is
unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or
wrong because of other indications which one would need a site
inspection to find.
You say "Your approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule, as you
insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or
lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no
signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion".
Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if
there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or
to the opposite.
I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of
what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't
follow the on the ground rule.
Thanks
Tony
Tony
I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to
verify other edits.
OSM data relies on being verifiable.
You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a
correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary
data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive
evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of
signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly
permitted without signage.
Your approach doesn?t follow the on the ground rule, as you insist
on disputing map updates that are based what?s on the ground or
lack there of.
Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and
SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion.
It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn?t be verified for accuracy?
When I?m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify
data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways
assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is
apparent that bike are not permitted.
regards,
Sebastian
On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
?Hi Sebastian and list
I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief
that a short section of bike route through park should be
cycleway. Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows.
Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn?t appear to be any
signage permitting bicycles on said road.
Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle =
dismount might be the most appropriate.
Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated
14,731 bicycle paths changed to bicycle=no in 636 changesets. He
no longer adds bicycle=no but still changes paths to footways.
Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to
footpaths and removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not
being explicit signage that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9
such edits in the last 4 days.
The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to
check, the path might or might not be better described as a
footway. I do not have the time to individually visit each of
Sebastian's edits. I have had enough.
So mapping community, its your choice, do nothing and Sebastian
will continue to change cycleways and shared paths into footways OR
let Sebastian and the DWG know that this retagging is not
acceptable to the community. Please let them both know in clear and
unambiguous terms what you think, don't expect others to speak for
you.
Thanks
Tony
Sun, 27 Mar 2022 Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au:
Hi Sebastian and list,
2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset:
118627943
I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at
Changeset: 118627943
I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, the
bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the footpath
The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to
be in the circle before it faded.
Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.
18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of
Tricks Reserve
18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly
Tony
_____________________________________________________
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
