We can unfortunately add two more changesets where Matt1993 has done this in 
the last 24h. [10] [11]

I've sent him a PM about this to come and join us on [talk-us] to talk about 
it, but I bet he's going to 'ignore' it after what he wrote to me on a 
changeset in the last day (he must have just discovered it by luck to be 
honest). [12]  He bashed me as not being 'professional', 'rude' & to send him a 
message (I did, it's called the chanageset comment...).  I waited 6+ days 
(others might have only waited 12h or less) before I attempted to fix any 
damage he's done waiting for a response on the changeset (and others with him 
too).... [12] My source for the change was 'common sense/Bing' there because I 
was repairing the routing for bicycle routes as that's part of a Bike PA route 
(as mentioned in the comments of [12]) and I looked at the area with Bing (plus 
I've been there before).  When he converted it to a motorway (twice), it broke 
the bicycle routing in that area.  I was repairing the data there and it was a 
legit changeset comment on my repair (links to changesets in comments of [12]). 
 At least I explain what I'm doing in a changeset and don't use a 'generic' 
comment on all my changesets.  Plus, a 'Single interchange doesn't = 
motorway...'.  If so, we'd have several mini motorways segments along US-19 in 
West Virginia between I-79 & I-77, where it's a major 'trunk' highway, but has 
several interchanges sprinkled along it (the only true motorway segments it has 
is from I-77 to it's first interchange (which is where US-19 leaves/joins 
Corridor L) and the bypass segment in the Oak Hill area.  Anyways, several 
other users I talked to agreed with me on this fix for [12] (on and off of OSM).

Anyways David, I don't agree with the 'maxspeed:advisory' tag unless the speed 
sign is one of the 'yellow' ones.  I know the toll plaza on the Ohio Turnpike 
on I-76 going into/out-of Pennsylvania uses normal speed limit signs.  Thus, 
those areas should be with the normal 'maxspeed' tag.  However, I do fully 
agree with you on the lanes tag.  That's how I did it @ the Gateway Toll Plaza 
on the I-76 PA Turnpike. [13]  Could use some more fine tuning using the 
'turn:lanes' tag however.

-James

[10] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34581064
[11] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34581478 
[12] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33674410
[13] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.90417/-80.49574  


From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:27:05 -0700
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Downgrading 'motorways' around toll plazas?

I also don't think it's reasonable to represent every lane of a toll booth as a 
different way or as trunk. I've also tried to contact this user and received no 
response. 
I think a better representation is using the lanes tag and or  
maxspeed:advisory.

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote:


James Mast <[email protected]> writes:



> Does anybody think it is a good idea to downgrade 'motorways' around

> toll plazas to 'trunk' highways?  I just noticed a user did this in

> mass in NY and MA along I-90/I-87. [1] [2] He's even done this in PA a

> few times. [3]



No, this is not reasonable.  While one might object philosophically to a

tollbooth on an Interstate highway, that's the way the world is, and

noting it as a tollbooth is adequate.



> I've also noticed several problematic changesets this user has done in

> the past.  I've left several comments on some of his changesets [4]

> [5] and he's never responded to them except once, and that was after

> sending him a few PM's (1 per month) till he finally responded only

> partially to my question in it. [6] That leads me to believe that he's

> either completely ignoring the e-mails, or he's not even getting them.

> Also, in that one comment that he did leave (in [6]), he pretty much

> completely ignored my question (if he had been there and saw shields

> for this 'new' route since I don't want to delete 'valid' data) and

> said that he works '12 hour days'.  Honestly, if he can still find

> time to do big OSM edits and work for 12 hours a day, can't he spare a

> minute or two to respond to a comment left for him instead of taking 2

> months to reply?  I mean, even if I was busy and somebody left a

> comment on a changeset I did, I would try to make a few minutes to

> respond back within a day or two (week tops) of the comment.  This is

> a community project and everybody needs to work together and not

> ignore each other.



I agree that we should have higher expectations of people working within

the project vs just editing by themselves.



> Another problem with this user is that he almost always keeps using

> the same changeset comment of "using bing imagery to update map" which

> is completely useless to tell what he's really doing in each

> changeset.



I also agree that we should have higher expectations of both

geographically smaller changesets (except in limited cases where they

are clearly completely uncontroversial) and more descriptive comments.

Unfortunately it seems that making edits without being willing to engage

with others and non-useful changeset comments are correlated.


_______________________________________________

Talk-us mailing list

[email protected]

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us





_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

                                          
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Reply via email to