Thanks Andrew. It does appear we are both looking at the same thing through different lenses.
The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with the Australian Tagging guidelines, hence I’m not exactly clear on the objection as the guidelines say that highway=footway should generally be used, which i agree with as it is the correct legal interpretation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines Trying to get a consensus on something that is wrong does not make it fact or legal. Hypothetically, if we all agreed that we could tag one-way roads as bi-directional it does not change the permission status of the road. I visited a friend across town this passed weekend and came across numerous instances where footpaths were tagged as shared paths without any signs or line marking. I made comments on the previous change set and the Mapper had agreed that the paths should be reverted to footway. There seems to be varied use of shared paths and footways across the metropolitan melbourne which is all over the place and really needs to be looked at and corrected. regards, Sebastian > On 7 Apr 2022, at 5:21 pm, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I should have done this for my last message, but let's not and make this > directed against any particular mapper, I've updated the thread subject > accordingly. > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:14, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Tony and Sebastian, >> >> There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care deeply >> about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best intentions to >> make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're both engaging in >> discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see is happening in >> good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice >> here. >> >> Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should be >> mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the ground. >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides >> some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we >> should be using >> bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that is by >> paint or signage >> bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage >> >> In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear to >> me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently mapped >> without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a signposted bicycle >> route which takes you through that way I think that should be enough to give >> it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes. >> >> Is there a wider community view about this? >> >> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20, <fors...@ozonline.com.au> wrote: >>> Hi Sebastian >>> >>> Thanks for participating in this discussion. >>> >>> You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly >>> permitted without signage". >>> >>> This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step >>> with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly >>> permitted without signage. >>> >>> I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is >>> unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or >>> wrong because of other indications which one would need a site >>> inspection to find. >>> >>> You say "Your approach doesn't follow the on the ground rule, as you >>> insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or >>> lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no >>> signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion". >>> >>> Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if >>> there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or >>> to the opposite. >>> I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of >>> what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't >>> follow the on the ground rule. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Tony >>> >>> > Tony >>> > >>> > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to >>> > verify other edits. >>> > >>> > OSM data relies on being verifiable. >>> > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a >>> > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary >>> > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive >>> > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of >>> > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly >>> > permitted without signage. >>> > Your approach doesn?t follow the on the ground rule, as you insist >>> > on disputing map updates that are based what?s on the ground or >>> > lack there of. >>> > Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and >>> > SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion. >>> > >>> > It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn?t be verified for accuracy? >>> > When I?m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify >>> > data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways >>> > assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is >>> > apparent that bike are not permitted. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > regards, >>> > >>> > Sebastian >>> > >>> >> On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: >>> >> ?Hi Sebastian and list >>> >> >>> >> I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief >>> >> that a short section of bike route through park should be >>> >> cycleway. Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows. >>> >> >>> >> Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago >>> >> From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn?t appear to be any >>> >> signage permitting bicycles on said road. >>> >> Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle = >>> >> dismount might be the most appropriate. >>> >> >>> >> Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated >>> >> 14,731 bicycle paths changed to bicycle=no in 636 changesets. He >>> >> no longer adds bicycle=no but still changes paths to footways. >>> >> >>> >> Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to >>> >> footpaths and removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not >>> >> being explicit signage that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9 >>> >> such edits in the last 4 days. >>> >> >>> >> The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to >>> >> check, the path might or might not be better described as a >>> >> footway. I do not have the time to individually visit each of >>> >> Sebastian's edits. I have had enough. >>> >> >>> >> So mapping community, its your choice, do nothing and Sebastian >>> >> will continue to change cycleways and shared paths into footways OR >>> >> let Sebastian and the DWG know that this retagging is not >>> >> acceptable to the community. Please let them both know in clear and >>> >> unambiguous terms what you think, don't expect others to speak for >>> >> you. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> Tony >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Sun, 27 Mar 2022 Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Sebastian and list, >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: >>> >>> 118627943 >>> >>> >>> >>> I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at >>> >>> Changeset: 118627943 >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part >>> >>> appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, the >>> >>> bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the footpath >>> >>> >>> >>> The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23 >>> >>> show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to >>> >>> be in the circle before it faded. >>> >>> >>> >>> Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked. >>> >>> >>> >>> 18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of >>> >>> Tricks Reserve >>> >>> >>> >>> 18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay >>> >>> 51 shows this sign more clearly >>> >>> >>> >>> Tony >>> > >>> > _____________________________________________________ >>> > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line >>> > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
