Diaz, i'm sorry I can't sympathise with these excuses "it's not me it the
validator" the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine routing
all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the back because
it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and deserves no credit
for simply saying the validator told me so, it's basically bot editing using
that excuse, I will be watching all edits this guy makes from now on and will
be reporting every single edit he makes that breaks routing to the DWG and by
the report button itself on the user page, then he can explain himself there
________________________________
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org <talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson <m...@diacritic.xyz>
To: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Hi Anthony,
I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find
the same errors get reintroduced.
I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to
stop other editors from making changes in an area.
In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.
I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.
Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map,
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time
doing the fun stuff. :)
Dian
On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns,
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it.
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
4. FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?
Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:
1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel
When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.
> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap
This changeset deleted this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961
which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389
which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap
This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446
You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was
deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of
cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I
simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277
You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any
no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a
slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no
u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that
was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.59301>
> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my
> time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot
> to
> come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask
> DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be
> banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out
> vandalism!
I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the
to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a
broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing.
A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn
restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of
months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly
because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you
create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset
comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they
could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that
in iD.
My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost
all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper
reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to
have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand
what someone was trying to map before I fix it.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:25:31 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>
To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au
Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID:
<cacxr7k1ujx2wqzf5nsgxrd+6crp-upx7mpasjsvlogg5de9...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389
>
>
> Cut and paste error there. The existing no u-turn restriction is:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13909088
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/418ba850/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:53:14 +1000
From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com>
To: "'Andrew Davidson'" <thesw...@gmail.com>,
<talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au
Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <000d01d85c45$d472c5e0$7d5851a0$@wyatt-family.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Many thanks for the detailed explanation
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44)
On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
> correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?
Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:
1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways 4.
The members must connect in a way that you can travel
When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.
> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap
This changeset deleted this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961
which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it
only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to
delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389
which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap
This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446
You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was
deleting these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of
cross-your-heart thing going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I
simplified it to a standard traffic light box intersection:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277
You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any
no-right turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a
slip lane. Since it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no
u-turns to cover that. This is exactly the same routing information that
was there before, but now in a simpler easier to maintain format.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/13
> 8.59301> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been
> wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this
> shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I
> would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and
> see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit
> policy or straight out vandalism!
I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the
to-do plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a
broken turn restriction relation was supposed to be doing.
A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn
restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of
months, as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly
because iD will quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you
create invalid ones and then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset
comments on the ones that had broken them until a user asked me how they
could stop doing it and I discovered that there isn't a way to do that
in iD.
My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost
all deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper
reconfigured an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to
have changed the routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand
what someone was trying to map before I fix it.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:00:38 +1000
From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com>
To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
Message-ID: <001301d85c46$dc381a40$94a84ec0$@wyatt-family.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <pan...@outlook.com>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
Hi Anthony,
There are multiple tools out there for finding 'errors' in OSM data and
many
people use them to keep the OSM data up to date. You might also like to
share the OSM software that you are using on your vehicle GPS as it may
turn
out that it doesn't handle relations or routing of some situations.
Cheers - Phil
From: Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com> >
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM
To: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
The biggest issue I have with this account is that they don't find
routing
errors on their own, this person stalks other peoples edits and
"correcs"
them using knowledge as their source, I find these routing errors 100%
myself in real world situations, I have been editing and using OSM on my
car
gps for many years, this user edits other users edits based on no
knowledge
of the intersection at all, having a user like this should put anyone
off
making any routing edits when this person randomly edits 10 different
intersections in 10 minutes and says they have knowledge.
From: Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <mailto:pan...@outlook.com> ;
talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
Hi Anthony (slice0),
Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell
out
in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is
incorrect.
That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you
restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG.
PS Swavu is not a bot.
Cheers - Phil (tastrax)
From: Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com> >
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
User TheSwavu
This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
more
than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
correction
this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the
notes,
let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it
breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 |
OpenStreetMap
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset:
120198383 | OpenStreetMap
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930
1> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting
my
time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to
come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask
DWG
to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned
from
any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d0f732e2/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
------------------------------
End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/fa430fd0/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
------------------------------
End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
