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

[Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com)]

I suspect that no-one is taking the piss - depending on the mail client
"reply all" will very often go to the sender cc the list.

Perhaps a bit more discussion about what problems have been created might
have helped (and "source=knowledge") isn't a great description of why
something was changed, but to an outsider it does look like a couple of
rounds of polite questions were mossing before the "wtf is going on" on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373#map=19/-34.76638/138.58995
.

Where there are turn restrictions missing something vital like "from" or
"to" sometimes it's obvious what needs to be re-added, and sometimes
actually deleting it is just fine because other tags (such as oneway) are
doing the same job.

Where you think a turn restriction has been deleted in error, perhaps it
would help to comment why that was in error?



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 13:18 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

> Im not it’s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this
> conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when
> the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
>
>
>
> 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 48 (Luke Stewart)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
> From: Luke Stewart 
> To: Anthony Panozzo 
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> Message-ID:
>  3+dc4uvt_k62zz...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> > I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you
> > from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Luke Stewart 
> > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List
> > 
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> >
> >
> >
> > "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
> > to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that
> was
> > incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it
> > could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional
> and
> > that is obvious given the single member
> >
> > "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag
> > yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area
> > that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has
> > been discussed ad nauseam
> >
> > "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a
> word
> > im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a
> > contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what
> > we are saying or why you are incorrect
> >
> >
> >
> > So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp,
> then
> > go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am
> > yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely
> > would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then
> provides
> > a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a
> > way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that
> > deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was
> > the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke
> > the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first
> > adding it.
> >
> >
> >
> > P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted
> > to talk-au.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Luke
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo 
> wrote:
> >
> > Luke,
> >
> >
> >
> > TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
> >  to, it wasn?t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have
> you
> > figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you
> > 

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

[Anthony Panozzo]

Im not it’s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this 
conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when the 
matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly



From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55

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 48 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Message-ID:

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

Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?

Cheers,
Luke

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:

> I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you
> from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
> *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
>
>
>
> "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
> to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was
> incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it
> could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and
> that is obvious given the single member
>
> "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag
> yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area
> that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has
> been discussed ad nauseam
>
> "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word
> im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a
> contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what
> we are saying or why you are incorrect
>
>
>
> So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then
> go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am
> yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely
> would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides
> a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it.
>
>
>
> Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a
> way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that
> deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was
> the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke
> the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first
> adding it.
>
>
>
> P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted
> to talk-au.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> Luke,
>
>
>
> TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
>  to, it wasn?t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you
> figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you
> now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first
> place? OMG it?s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same
> opinion and wont listen to a word im saying.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Luke Stewart 
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM
> *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
>
>
>
> This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see
> the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you
> familiarise yourself with the documentation:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples
>
> Version #2
> fixed intersection routing
>
> Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 ? Changeset #118293106
>
> Tags
> restriction no_u_turn
> type restriction
>
>
> *Members 1 member Node 6357628400 as via*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
> I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the
> community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I
> guarantee I am