Re: [Talk-GB] "road names" along the A50 (and elsewhere)
The user looks like a troll. None of his/her/bot changesets have any comments. And they bounce all over the world. I think he deleted the original roads on the 21 jan 2013 as the history in OSM says they are new roads. Can someone look at reverting them all. I sent the user this PM. "What are you doing with your edits here?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14728720 You appear to have deleted major roads A50 and replaced them with strange names. Where are you getting your information. Your changesets have no notes in them explaining what you have done. Can you explain what you are doing before we revert the changes and look at getting you banned. Cheers, John" > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:11:53 + > From: li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk > To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-GB] "road names" along the A50 (and elsewhere) > > Recently various sections along the A50 between Derby and Stoke have > grown names, for example here: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/202232245/history > > I've driven along that section of road many times, and I don't believe > I've seen a name on any of the new sections. > > According to Musical Chairs, there are genuinely no names: > > http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?zoom=15&lat=52.87983&lon=-1.66551&layers=B0TT&view_mode=pseudorandom > > Some similar roads in Derbyshire do have official names, such as the A52 > "Brian Clough Way" between Derby and Nottingham, or well-used unoffical > ones such as the A61 which locals regularly used to refer to as just the > "Dronfield Bypass", but I've never heard of ones for the A50 being used. > > I'm planning to remove names that I can't find evidence for, but thought > that I'd better check to make sure that I'm not missing anything > obvious. Do these names have any basis in reality? "Foston Hatton > Hilton Bypass**" sounds like something that might have been written on a > planning application, but I've never seen it used anywhere. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > ** Some of the given names (such as "Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass") are > further complicated by having soft hyphens (hex AD) inserted between > syllables, which results in the rendering of hyphens in some places but > not others. > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] "road names" along the A50 (and elsewhere)
Recently various sections along the A50 between Derby and Stoke have grown names, for example here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/202232245/history I've driven along that section of road many times, and I don't believe I've seen a name on any of the new sections. According to Musical Chairs, there are genuinely no names: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?zoom=15&lat=52.87983&lon=-1.66551&layers=B0TT&view_mode=pseudorandom Some similar roads in Derbyshire do have official names, such as the A52 "Brian Clough Way" between Derby and Nottingham, or well-used unoffical ones such as the A61 which locals regularly used to refer to as just the "Dronfield Bypass", but I've never heard of ones for the A50 being used. I'm planning to remove names that I can't find evidence for, but thought that I'd better check to make sure that I'm not missing anything obvious. Do these names have any basis in reality? "Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass**" sounds like something that might have been written on a planning application, but I've never seen it used anywhere. Cheers, Andy ** Some of the given names (such as "Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass") are further complicated by having soft hyphens (hex AD) inserted between syllables, which results in the rendering of hyphens in some places but not others. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk
He's responded positively to comments in his latest diary entry, and has asked for help with JOSM. Hopefully this can now be resolved! Only trouble is, I fear what he wants to do is quite complex and he might struggle and get annoyed again :-s On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > However, I think it's now clear that the whole of both > > changesets [3,4] need to be reverted. Presumably, this should be > > done as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of subsequent > > edits complicating things. I don't have any recent experience of > > doing reverts, so is there anyone reading this who would be > > able to do them instead? > > Done. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078224 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078231 > > cheers > Richard > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-user-reinstating-old-railways-in-Norfolk-tp5749762p5749768.html > Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > However, I think it's now clear that the whole of both > changesets [3,4] need to be reverted. Presumably, this should be > done as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of subsequent > edits complicating things. I don't have any recent experience of > doing reverts, so is there anyone reading this who would be > able to do them instead? Done. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078224 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078231 cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-user-reinstating-old-railways-in-Norfolk-tp5749762p5749768.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk
On 18/02/13 14:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: New user MATTHEW NIBARI [1] has created just two changesets [2], both yesterday (17th February). The OSM History viewer views of these are as follows: http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15065237 http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15066769 I've been though every way listed there, and every single change in both of these changesets involves changing railway=abandoned or railway=disused to railway=rail, and removing any highway=* tags. I haven't checked every way, but I expect that all these railway lines are indeed disused or abandoned, and so the previous tagging was correct. He posted diary entries as well, and several of us have tried to engage with him there. From his last comment here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MATTHEW%20NIBARI/diary/18652 I wonder if he is just very confused and thinks this is the correct way to create a custom map for himself? His english doesn't seem to be brilliant which may not be helping with people's attempts to explain the problem to him. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk
It may be worth pointing out that you can have different view of the same data. For example ITO have a map highlighting the former railways: http://www.itoworld.com/map/198#fullscreen&lat=52.58151540618443&lon=1.0302901709739063&zoom=9 Shaun ITO World Developer On 18 Feb 2013, at 14:24, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" wrote: > New user MATTHEW NIBARI [1] has created just two changesets [2], both > yesterday (17th February). The OSM History viewer views of these are > as follows: > > http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15065237 > http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15066769 > > I've been though every way listed there, and every single change in > both of these changesets involves changing railway=abandoned or > railway=disused to railway=rail, and removing any highway=* tags. I > haven't checked every way, but I expect that all these railway lines > are indeed disused or abandoned, and so the previous tagging was > correct. > > I sent Matthew a message a couple of hours ago through the OSM system > to explain that our tagging should reflect the current reality, and > that his changes are therefore inappropriate. His reply was that he > was trying to track down old railway lines and make them easier to > find in OSM. He didn't seem to see a problem with changing the > tagging. His user page [1] includes the text "If people are having > problems please note the edited sections must not be changed for any > reason so if anyone inbox me or changes it back, I will revert back if > its put back" suggesting he may revert any changes to his new tagging > regardless of other's views. I've sent a second email half an hour ago > to explain in more detail why current roads need to be tagged as roads > and not railways, and suggested that he should discuss things with the > community on talk-gb to find a suitable way to achieve his ends > without messing up the map data for everyone else. > > At that stage I'd only found a couple of road->rail changes in one > changeset, and wasn't aware of the History Viewer, so didn't know that > *every* change was removing highway tags and changing to railway=rail. > I thus wasn't sure whether the whole changeset would need reverting or > just a part of it, and so I asked Matthew what his changes had > involved. However, I think it's now clear that the whole of both > changesets [3,4] need to be reverted. Presumably, this should be done > as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of subsequent edits > complicating things. I don't have any recent experience of doing > reverts, so is there anyone reading this who would be able to do them > instead? > > I haven't had a reply from Matthew to my second message yet, but once > this has posted, I'll send him a web link to this thread. > > Many thanks, > > Robert. > > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MATTHEW%20NIBARI > [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MATTHEW%20NIBARI/edits > [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15065237 > [4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15066769 > > -- > Robert Whittaker > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk
New user MATTHEW NIBARI [1] has created just two changesets [2], both yesterday (17th February). The OSM History viewer views of these are as follows: http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15065237 http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15066769 I've been though every way listed there, and every single change in both of these changesets involves changing railway=abandoned or railway=disused to railway=rail, and removing any highway=* tags. I haven't checked every way, but I expect that all these railway lines are indeed disused or abandoned, and so the previous tagging was correct. I sent Matthew a message a couple of hours ago through the OSM system to explain that our tagging should reflect the current reality, and that his changes are therefore inappropriate. His reply was that he was trying to track down old railway lines and make them easier to find in OSM. He didn't seem to see a problem with changing the tagging. His user page [1] includes the text "If people are having problems please note the edited sections must not be changed for any reason so if anyone inbox me or changes it back, I will revert back if its put back" suggesting he may revert any changes to his new tagging regardless of other's views. I've sent a second email half an hour ago to explain in more detail why current roads need to be tagged as roads and not railways, and suggested that he should discuss things with the community on talk-gb to find a suitable way to achieve his ends without messing up the map data for everyone else. At that stage I'd only found a couple of road->rail changes in one changeset, and wasn't aware of the History Viewer, so didn't know that *every* change was removing highway tags and changing to railway=rail. I thus wasn't sure whether the whole changeset would need reverting or just a part of it, and so I asked Matthew what his changes had involved. However, I think it's now clear that the whole of both changesets [3,4] need to be reverted. Presumably, this should be done as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of subsequent edits complicating things. I don't have any recent experience of doing reverts, so is there anyone reading this who would be able to do them instead? I haven't had a reply from Matthew to my second message yet, but once this has posted, I'll send him a web link to this thread. Many thanks, Robert. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MATTHEW%20NIBARI [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MATTHEW%20NIBARI/edits [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15065237 [4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15066769 -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
