Re: [talk-au] turn restrictions discussion

2022-04-30 Thread Dian Ågesson 
his 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 
To: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au
 Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/418ba850/attachment-0001.htm 
[3]

>

--

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:53:14 +1000
 From: "Phil Wyatt" 
To: "'Andrew Davidson'" ,
 
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 
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/rela

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57

2022-04-30 Thread Anthony Panozzo 
re 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
> >

Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org

2022-04-30 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
So how's it going after this first month?

Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> The new community.openstreetmap.org site is up and running.
>
> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users: Australia
>  subforum.
>
> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be created on
> the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some amount of content
> relating to Australia.
>
>
> ___
> 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 55

2022-04-30 Thread Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com) 
/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 
> > To: OpenStreetMap 
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au
> >  Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
> > Message-ID:
> >
> > 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > 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
> > -- 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" 
> > To: "'Andrew Davidson'" ,
> >  
> > 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 Messa

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55

2022-04-30 Thread Anthony Panozzo 
> 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 Davidso

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

2022-04-30 Thread Luke Stewart 
ory/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 
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au
>  Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
> Message-ID:
>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
> -- 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" 
> To: "'Andrew Davidson'" ,
>  
> 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 
> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
&g

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

2022-04-30 Thread Anthony Panozzo 
ry/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 mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>>
To: OpenStreetMap mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au
 Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID:

mailto:cacxr7k1ujx2wqzf5nsgxrd%2b6crp-upx7mpasjsvlogg5de9...@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, 
mailto: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" mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com>>
To: "'Andrew Davidson'" mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>>,
 mailto: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<http://wyatt-family.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="UTF-8"

Many thanks for the detailed explanation

-Original Message-
 From: Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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

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

2022-04-30 Thread Luke Stewart 
y/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 
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au
>  Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
> Message-ID:
>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
> -- 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" 
> To: "'Andrew Davidson'" ,
>  
> 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 
> 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
>
>

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

2022-04-30 Thread Luke Stewart 
ctly 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 
>>> To: OpenStreetMap 
>>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au
>>>  Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> 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
>>> -- 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" 
>>> To: "'Andrew Davidson'" ,
>>>  
>>> 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 
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> &

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

2022-04-30 Thread Luke Stewart 
et=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
&

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

2022-04-30 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
ntersection:
>
> 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 
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au
>  Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)
> Message-ID:
>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
> -- 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" 
> To: "'Andrew Davidson'" ,
>  
> 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 
> 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 on