Hi Sebastian
It is both frustrating and disappointing to see that you continue to
argue your point of view that is incorrect.
It is clear that a local council who follows the Victorian road laws
has published the permissions of ways within their jurisdiction yet
you still try to argue that ways are incorrectly tagged.
No, I do not argue that the ways are incorrectly tagged. I argue that
the consensus, the majority of OSM editors, believe that the ways are
incorrectly tagged.
To the point I made in the previous thread, cycling is not permitted
on any way unless specifically signed. This is exemplified in
change set 127561873 where the permissions that Frankston council
have established in line with our road rules.
The consensus, not just me, reject your argument that cycling is not permitted
on any way unless specifically signed
Regardless of copyright, I have personally verified all roads in the
Seaford wetlands via both foot and bike and tagged ways according
to what is on the ground and which is back to back with Frankston
council (as per Victorian law) yet you still cannot provide any
evidence that my tagging is incorrect.
I do not need to provide evidence that you are incorrect. The
concensus believes that you are incorrect.
I ask that you conform to community expectations and not tag on the
basis that cycling is not permitted on any way unless specifically
signed.
Thanks
Tony
On 23 Oct 2022, at 10:06 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
Hi Sebastian
You sent me private message, 15/10/22 20:52:39 EST
In it you agreed that consensus had been achieved even though you
thought it was wrong.
I was disappointed to then see further tagging changes which in my
opinion go against community consensus.
Changeset: 127828054
172362952, v4 cycleway changed to footway
170529137, v5 cycleway changed to footway
Changeset: 127827849
995759320, v2 cycleway changed to footway
995753641, v3 cycleway changed to footway
Changeset: 127561873
15 Oct 9:28am (UTC?), I think this is after your mail to me.
It lists source:
https://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/things-to-do/parks-and-reserves/pdfs/seaford_wetlands_reserve_2018.pdf
This source may not be allowed because of copyright
1024370763, v2 bicycle=yes, foot=yes changed to bicycle=no foot=no
a highway=footway with foot=no makes little sense, if you are
correct then its just an informal path with access=no?
827522368, v7 bicycle=yes changed to bicycle=no
Seaford Wetlands Trail (770944899) bicycle =yes changed to bicycle=no
Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to me that you continue to
act against community consensus though you agree that consensus had
been achieved. Your thoughts please.
Thanks
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
