OpenStreetMap
the DWG rules placed on my edits have already ruined the map
Posted by slice0 on 29 January 2024 in English.last week the OSM Board and the DWG have given permission to anybody to change my 100% factual edits with out any intervention. This has already lead to the map displaying old outdated information. The changeset i’m bringing attention to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146818956 The Gawler Bypass which even has it’s own wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawler_Bypass was completed in 2010, its intended function was to divert all traffic wanting to go north of Gawler to go around the entire town. The section of Main North Road that goes through Gawler was officially downgraded to a secondary road plus it’s route number B19 was also removed. When this section was classed in OSM I suspect it was based on its class before the license change and its was kept as “primary” which was not wrong, it is a fact that it was a primary road at the time. https://imgur.com/ZrpOFr8 My edit clearly with supported information is correct to class it as secondary. I would like to ask The DWG how we move forward as a community and keeping the integrity of the information at the same time. OSM is a important project to me and I would like to find a way to work together here without slowly watching road by road the factual information fall apart. more relevant links posted below https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/trailblazer-roads https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/12436982#map=15/-34.5780/138.7422 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_North_Road#cite_note-8 https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/nsc/northern_expressway https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-34.6025/138.7299
previous diary entry https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/slice0/diary/403361
Discussion
Comment from Wynndale on 29 January 2024 at 21:52
When youʼre in a hole stop digging.
Comment from slice0 on 29 January 2024 at 21:55
@wynndale im serious here, a fact has been deleted from the project
Comment from SomeoneElse on 29 January 2024 at 23:02
Hello,
Your profile currently reads “In South Australia I have made every single Major Traffic Road, Primary Road and Secondary Road a 1 to 1 with the Legal and Official Government Source, The OpenStreetMap Project has full permission to use”. It has been made clear to you many times that just because a source is legal to use, it doesn’t mean the value judgements that that source made are appropriate for OSM. You decided the you were right and literally everyone else in OSM was wrong, continued, and earned yourself a one-month block from the project.
Let me ask you - if you continue like this, what exactly do you think will happen next? Do you think that literally everyone else in OSM will somehow come around to your point of view, or do you think that they will be asking the DWG to extend your block? If you think it’s the former, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Perhaps, instead of carrying on the the same vein, you should do a bit of listening. Re-read what people said when they explained how OSM’s highway classification works (both in Australia, and around the world). Reread some of the other things they said when they tried to to change your approach to the project. If you don’t reconsider, then in a month’s time you’re going to be in exactly the same place that you are now (i.e. not able to edit OSM).
Best Regards,
Andy, from OSM’s Data Working Group.
Comment from slice0 on 29 January 2024 at 23:12
@someoneelse im trying to point out that a new DWG policy as directly lead to old outdated and factually incorrect information being put into the map. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Road_Hierarchy ,just the fact that it no longer has a route assignment (B19) means it is no longer a state road and does not meet OSM requirements for a primary classification. Please point out where I am wrong here. Ive been editing OSM for over 10 years never even had any changesets comments until I decided to look into the classification information that we have available and fix all the mistakes.
Comment from SomeoneElse on 29 January 2024 at 23:30
There is no “new DWG policy”.
Evidence please (for whatever it is that you are claiming)
In that snippet you seem to be talking about one particular road. It is entirely reasonable that if the classification of one road in the real world has changed, then that might affect the classification that one road in OSM.
What is not reasonable is where (on your profile) you said “I have made every single Major Traffic Road, Primary Road and Secondary Road a 1 to 1 with the Legal and Official Government Source”. This destroys the work of other mappers and will not be tolerated.
As far as I can tell from https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=435139 , people have been trying to help you with this since 2022. It would appear to me that you have around 28 days to reconsider your attitude to other mappers in particular and the project in general.
Comment from slice0 on 29 January 2024 at 23:39
Thats the thing though, the official data does match and line up with OSM policy, the only thing fizzie was asking me for that I couldnt find or provide was the dictionary meaning that the SA government use for Secondary and Primary Roads. I found the Western Australian government one and its the same as OSM but I cant find the SA meanings. people have just been jumping on the bangwagon with out genuinely looking into any of this information. and yes I havent helped with my attitude because I mostly assumed its pretty obvious and I didnt really need to go into detail. This is where I want to find a middle ground and move on, I can speak the someone from the transport department and get the meaning.
Comment from SomeoneElse on 29 January 2024 at 23:44
Setting your profile picture to an image containing CENSORSHIP and posting here that “the DWG rules placed on my edits have already ruined the map” is a bit of an odd step for someone who wants to “find a middle ground and move on” :)
Comment from slice0 on 29 January 2024 at 23:50
I thought it was funny ill remove it, I drove 450km yesterday. I have been using OSM on my GPS since the project started. People dont realise I know what im talking about when it comes to navigation and roads.
Comment from slice0 on 30 January 2024 at 00:31
that same user is just randomly deleting secondary roads now, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146839145#map=15/-34.8170/138.6552 the state upgraded the intersection I will make a comment on the changeset
Comment from slice0 on 30 January 2024 at 00:34
I cant make changeset comments but this is what I wrote https://dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/completed_projects/bridge_maxwell_pooraka the intersection was upgraded and a roundabout was built at the nelson road joint and all the road was resurfaced to accommodate a secondary road, this section was classified as secondary in 2019 can I please asked why these are changed
Comment from SomeoneElse on 30 January 2024 at 00:49
No, they are not, as a quick look at an example in that changeset https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/173474800 will reveal.
Saying things like this that simply are not true is at best unhelpful to your cause.
When a large number of mostly incorrect changes have been made it’s normal practice to revert back to the status quo ante and then discuss which, if any, of the problematic changes were actually valid. If you believe that an intersection has been upgraded on the ground and the aerial imagery available to OSM is out of date, then providing photographs would help everyone consider what is the correct classification for OSM now.
As https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Road_Hierarchy says, “The standard practice in Australia is generally consistent with the global definition” - which means that mappers need to consider the best tagging on a case by case basis.
Comment from slice0 on 30 January 2024 at 01:02
@someoneelse so are we going to follow the guidelines for the gawler section? if we are that needs to be put back to secondary
Comment from SomeoneElse on 30 January 2024 at 01:14
I don’t know about “we”, but “you” aren’t going to be doing anything until you have changed your attitude towards the rest of the OSM community.
Comment from slice0 on 30 January 2024 at 01:26
I care a lot about the map and its accuracy. I have been using and editing it for over 10 years. I still have my original Garmin Nuvi. I probably sound annoyed sometimes because I care too much and it comes accorss as nasty. Im also not used to being part of any community in OSM I have always just quiestly edited on my own until I needed to ask a O-T question and found myself joining the discord and I guess after all these years I didnt realise the “community” part of OSM existed. Yes I will try to help and listen to people in the future, I am actually really good at doing OSM things. I never even read the wiki until recently when people started pointing out things, I remember mapping when “mappers preference” was a genuine rule and “map the intended function” and very very loose rules like that just because there were so few people editing. I have spent a lot of nights doing really mundane hard to do edits. and yes I guess it is annoying when someone just randomly comes along and reads the wiki and points out things that could have been done differently but its also very easy to do that as well without adding anything to the map.
Comment from SomeoneElse on 30 January 2024 at 16:51
We get that you care, but OSM is a community project - we have to work together or not at all.
What this means is that if you think one thing, and everyone thinks something else, you’re wrong. I think that the rest of the Australian OSM community have been incredibly tolerant so far, but if after 27 days you continue as you did before you’ll just get prevented from editing again.
One thing that might prevent this being an issue would be if you were to promise (perhaps in an OSM diary entry) that you won’t go back to your old ways, and that you do intend to work with the OSM community, not against it, going forward.
Comment from gileri on 30 January 2024 at 19:58
Please remember the human behind each mapper. Sure, their position is at odds most of the time, but they are a motivated person contributing to the project.
I really don’t like the position you take by talking like that. You (SomeoneElse) sure give a lot to the project, but that doesn’t give you absolute moral superiority to the rest of the peasants here. You have a lot of experience, sure, and will be right most of the time, but you don’t speak for everyone here. No one can. Someone(Else :p) with “power” must understand that surely ?
Comment from Mateusz Konieczny on 31 January 2024 at 05:01
@slice0 - if you care about some special aspect of road such as its official classification or quality class that does not match its importance/role in highway=* - then dedicated tag for that value is an option
See for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway:class:pl
But that would require discussing it with others and ceasing insults and attempts to redefine tags.
Comment from slice0 on 31 January 2024 at 05:16
@mateusz ok I get it, everyone has been against using South Australias legal and official source of road classification data. I have consistently been told that these edits do not match up with OSM rules. I have never been shown an example of this. With in a week of the DWG telling everyone they are free to revert my edits wit-out question a changeset has been made that plainly and clearly violates OSM rules and standards. I have pointed it out here in this diary entry. Yet nothing has been done about it. Can you see from my point of view, that I am the only one here actually sticking to these rules and guidelines. I am the only one providing facts, data and information.
Comment from slice0 on 3 February 2024 at 07:29
my new diary entry from todays adventures of “trying to keep factual information on the map”
Comment from slice0 on 3 February 2024 at 07:30
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/slice0/diary/403433