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, <pan...@outlook.com> 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 <suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > To: Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com> > Cc: OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > Message-ID: > <CABO5kcyjkTJtd=t5XtT1N72L+B1wS_-Z= > 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 <pan...@outlook.com> 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 <suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM > > *To: *Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com>; OSM Australian Talk List > > <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > > *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 <pan...@outlook.com> > 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 <suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM > > *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> > > *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo <pan...@outlook.com>; 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 < > suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> > > 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 not the only one who has this opinion. Several other > > mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth > > explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. > > > > > > > > iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that > you > > commented on was broken *by you* within a day of you adding it (aka, it > > lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally > the > > validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of > > presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not > > have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally > invalid, > > unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this > case. > > > > > > > > OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote > > edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the > > case of these edits. > > > > > > > > There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple > platforms > > with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very > > similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose > of > > OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with > > it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and > > devices, not a single router or renderer. > > > > > > > > Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of > > intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which > > apparently has 69 turn restriction relations: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the > > community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect > > > > I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an > > appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the > > first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with > > good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Luke > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/35932361/attachment.htm > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: 4BDFEAA66B0849EAB3BD22E2119E4B36.png > Type: image/png > Size: 144 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220430/35932361/attachment.png > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 55 > **************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
