I reverted this changset

changeset/175038462

I reverted this changset

changeset/175038462

I reverted this changset

changeset/175038462

HI've reverted this revert. I'm making contact with the Data Working Group about this subject.

The designated UK square blue sign "cyclists dismount" does NOT have the same meaning as the OSM tag bicycle=dismount

The sign is only an advisory, which by itself effectively lets you know that you may continue riding. Historically used to show it was legal to ride, but the upcoming highway had an adverse condition that could not be improved. (low height, narrow, poor visibilty).
I repeat, it did not mean "must not ride." It advised you of an issue.

It also was allowed, confusingly, to be used where a cycle way ended, but a pedestrain way continued. The intent to draw attention to an actual prohabition on cycling that is not clearly marked. (eg Pedestrian Zone).

The meaning has been updated. The original intent of advising of adverse conditions has been removed. It may only have been advise, but advising disabled people to walk breaks UK disability laws. The adverse conditions should now be signed to show the specific issue (eg Low Height (2m)). It is now only to be used together with other signs to confirm "No Cycling" exists at locations where it may not be apparent.

Now things get complex. In the situation your discussing. It is clear the intent is that the Cycle Track ends and you're not to ride over the foot bridge. But there appears no prohabition on cycling over that foot bridge.

Although we commonly say that "cycling on a pavement" is illegal in the UK. That is wrong. The prohabition is for vehicles, and objects with wheels, or animals, being taken onto a "footway" that is part of a road, but forms a lane in the road seperate from the carriegeway. (There is a legal difference between footway, footpath, and walk way). The bridge is seperate from the road, and therefore a footpath. Since it is a legislative Footpath and not a legislative Footway, there is no prohabition on non-motorised vehicles. A Traffic Order would be needed, and signed with a No Cycling sign at both ends of the bridge.

In my experience the Highways Authority can't be bothered with creating a Traffic Order, and has chosen to acheive their aim by misleading with the advisory Cyclists Dismount sign. Putting up this advice sign does not require a Traffic Order with associated cost.

There may be no prohabition of cycling over that bridge, but I would accept the intent of the sign and make the bridge bicycle=no.

Using areas mapped by sec147 in or around Exeter misleads.

Cranbrook is unusual as it's can be described as a personal project of one person

Taunton ? Thats nowhere near Exeter, it's in a differenct county. If I added data there I would respect the local mapping.

My changes are done not as part of a personal quest, they are done to bring the mapping in line with the regional practice for adding addresses.

The vast majority of the changes are to to addresses added by a one person. Sec147. Edits that appear to be from an automated import, and which involved moving some nodes to polygons.

I strongly agree that we should discuss issues, but this comes back to being a local issue. The dominant practice used by local mappers is to add addresses to nodes. (I don't include sec147 as a local mapper).

I will be going ahead with the changes, but making the changesets cover a much smaller area, and specifically concentrating on the areas where sec147 added addresses.

If you wish to raise the issue in the discussion forum, go ahead. I'm happy to discuss this there,

I did not make ~10,000 changes in an edit, and the edits are not "automated/mechanical" with regard to how this is meant in OSM, or the intent.

The mapping practice does follow local style. I'm not imposing this across the county so it does not need discussion.

The polygons with addresses in our area were mostly added by sec147. Sec147 edits appear automated and have the type of issues that lead to the rules on automated edits, and imports.

But.... looking at my changesets I do feel they are too large and should have been broken up into smaller changesets.

I'm not going to revert your reverts, but I am going to go back and once again move, with regard to local style, addresses to nodes. They will be done in much smaller areas /. changesets.
They are not with OSM intent, "scripted" or "mechanical".
I will also, once gain, fix some of the issues created by sec147. Others will fix in seperate edits, or by visiting some specfic locations.

Hi Joe-w. Exeter and East Devon area has always been dominated by mapping addressees as nodes, usually within the building. Done primarily by areas three main mappers. Myself, Guy, and Wilpin.

I personally didn’t bother with address for several years, and initially added them to buildings. When I started adding addresses in Topsham, it became obvious addressed buildings were nearly always wrong, or an assumption. From experience I found it was nearly always not possible to verify there was only one address is associated with a building. Then accepted the local style of adding address to nodes removed that issue."

The addresses added to buildings in our area are primarily from a user called sec147 in 2022.
His edits were questionable and appeared automated. He bulk added a large amount of addresses to polygons, often containing errors, and other issues.
His edits involved deleting address nodes, usually created by myself, Guy or Wilpin, and moving the data to polygons.

The link you give does not state or imply what I did was wrong? It also appears to be the creation of a single person? As is common in OSM, there is no clear rule

My edits were done to bring addressing into line with local mapping styles, with the next stage to find and fix errors created by sec147.

I see you've reverted my address edits. I wish you'd waited for me to respond first. You've done this by stating my edits are "undiscussed automated edits". My edits were not automated edits and clearly do not meet the common definition of that. I'll be a bit cheeky and state your reverts are undiscussed automated edits?

phodgking, we are allowed to use Ordnance Survey maps if they have the appropriate licence. There are two available as background layers in the iD editor used to make this edit.

"Ordnance Survey map" is commonly is used to refer to the Explorer & Landranger maps that can not be used for OSM mapping. If that's the case then the this changeset needs to be fixed.