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 <pan...@outlook.com> 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 <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 <m...@diacritic.xyz> > To: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > 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 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 <thesw...@gmail.com> > 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. > > > <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 <thesw...@gmail.com> > To: OpenStreetMap <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au > Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) > Message-ID: > > <cacxr7k1ujx2wqzf5nsgxrd+6crp-upx7mpasjsvlogg5de9...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 11:53 Andrew Davidson, <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" <p...@wyatt-family.com> > To: "'Andrew Davidson'" <thesw...@gmail.com>, > <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> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Many thanks for the detailed explanation > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> > 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/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/-34.76452/13 > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:00:38 +1000 > From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com> > To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 > Message-ID: <001301d85c46$dc381a40$94a84ec0$@wyatt-family.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > From: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM > To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <pan...@outlook.com> > 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 <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com > <pan...@outlook.com>> > > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM > To: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com > <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 <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com <p...@wyatt-family.com>> > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM > To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <mailto:pan...@outlook.com <pan...@outlook.com>> ; > talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org > <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 <pan...@outlook.com <mailto:pan...@outlook.com > <pan...@outlook.com>> > > Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org > <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 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: > 120198383 | OpenStreetMap > < > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930 > 1> 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! > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/d0f732e2/attachment.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 46 > **************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/fa430fd0/attachment.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 48 > **************************************** > _______________________________________________ > 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
