Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Anthony

Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area:
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=-33.87613&lon=151.17154
(Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches"
reports.

These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also
allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider
that what is shown is OK.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> 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 
> *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 
> To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> 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 wh

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48

[Anthony Panozzo]

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 
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM
To: 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 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
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 re

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

[Dian Ågesson]

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 
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 do

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

[Anthony Panozzo]

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 
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.

>  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

[talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

[Phil Wyatt]

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo' 
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 mailto:pan...@outlook.com> > 
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM
To: Phil Wyatt 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  
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo'  ;
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 mailto:pan...@outlook.com> > 
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM
To: 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
  and Changeset:
120198383 | OpenStreetMap
  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! 

 

 

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

[Phil Wyatt]

Many thanks for the detailed explanation

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson  
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.

>  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.

>  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


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson,  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
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

[Andrew Davidson]

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.

 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.


 
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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

[Phil Wyatt]

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  
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM
To: 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
  and Changeset:
120198383 | OpenStreetMap
  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! 

 

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging suggestions please - parking formal vs informal

[Bob Cameron]

Thanks all for your ideas (sorry a bit slow)

Going for major use of "informal", making sure that there is a way route 
to/through "surface" features, stopping bays and super small LV stops as 
"laybys" and a stock(ish) description for uncommon situations. Also 
adding capacity:hgv based on a drive in/out 20x4m block.


I also add the presence (or not) of a rubbish bin!

What makes a park formal being signage or obvious ground/area works. The 
distinction is sometimes a bit grey.


Will be a one by one fix of my past efforts!

Cheers

On 20/4/22 18:32, Bob Cameron wrote:

Only about regional areas, not urban

There are well used informal parks everywhere. Many used by trucks as 
rest areas. Some are tiny, some are huge, some are gravel pits, some 
are the NHVR green dot things.. Some councils even setup bins in them.


I'd like a way to tag any informal area. No extra tag would imply 
formal (signs)


Something like;

source:parking=sign (the blank default)
source:parking=informal
source:parking=stockpile (Possibly with the stockpile number in 
description=)

source:parking=nhvr

These informals are all about judgement and evidence of use.

Non standard examples. Will any existing tags cover them?

Tnxs



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

[Anthony Panozzo]

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/-34.76452/138.59301>
 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!



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, 29 April 2022 8:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

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. OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for
  review (Dian ?gesson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:03:27 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page
ready for review
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"



Hello,

Thank you for the feedback for the subpages that have been completed so
far.

The fourth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries
is ready for review.

Of particular importance in this subpage, the changes to the
administration levels that was discussed earlier has been incorporated
into this new subpage.

Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising
concerns.

Dian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220429/23823d18/attachment-0001.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 44


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for review

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback for the subpages that have been completed so 
far.


The fourth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries 
is ready for review.


Of particular importance in this subpage, the changes to the 
administration levels that was discussed earlier has been incorporated 
into this new subpage.


Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising 
concerns.


Dian___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au