If iD really is prompting changing highway=cycleway->highway=footway
without preserving cycle access, we can expect to see cycle routing
becoming badly broken in a lot of places. Some of these edits were made
3 weeks ago and nothing like that appears to have been reported elsewhere.
There also appears to be no justification in the wiki for assuming that
highway=cycleway should not be used where pedestrians have priority,
unless I have missed it. In general, the GB assumption is that
pedestrians have priority on infrastructure shared with cyclists.
Personally, I don't really care whether the top level tag is cycleway or
footway, as long as routing, access and other physical characteristics
are correct.
In any case, my first presumption was carelessness, not malice. Breaking
cycle routing in this part of London is very unhelpful, particularly at
the start of the new school term.
On 03/09/2020 10:39, Tom Hughes wrote:
> I suspect that the real clue is in the changeset tags:
>
> resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags=10
>
> So the iD validator has presumably claimed that the tagging of
> those paths was "out of date" in some way and this was likely a
> misguided attempt to fix that.
>
> Of course that was likely based on some rule in the validator
> that is trying push whatever daft path tagging the wiki is
> currently trying to promote...
>
> Certainly I think a polite enquiry would have been a better first
> response than presuming malice.
>
> Tom
[...]
>> In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access
>> tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing
>> through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this
>> is vandalism.
>>
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
