I should have done this for my last message, but let's not and make this directed against any particular mapper, I've updated the thread subject accordingly.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:14, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tony and Sebastian, > > There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care > deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best > intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're > both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see > is happening in good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there > is any malice here. > > Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should > be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the > ground. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides > some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we > should be using > bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that is > by paint or signage > bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage > > In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear > to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently > mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a signposted > bicycle route which takes you through that way I think that should be > enough to give it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes. > > Is there a wider community view about this? > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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, [email protected] 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 [email protected]: >> >> >> >>> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
