So no matter what they write on switch2osm, your own tile server is mostly magic.

:)

Pull requests welcome - or even an issue describing what did or did not work (including versions etc ).

I tend to test the “vanilla replication” version about once per new OS, but the pyosmium version more often since I use it myself.

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.

so are we going to follow the guidelines for the gawler section

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.

that same user is just randomly deleting secondary roads now, osm.org/changeset/146839145#map=15/-34.8170/138.6552

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 If you believe that an intersection has been upgraded on the ground and the aerial imagery available to OSM is out of date, then providing photographs would help everyone consider what is the correct classification for OSM now.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 osm.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.

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” :)

a new DWG policy

There is no “new DWG policy”.

as directly lead to old outdated and factually incorrect information being put into the map.

Evidence please (for whatever it is that you are claiming)

,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.

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.

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.

Sheepfolds are functionally different - often present in upland areas for when a farmer wants to gather sheep together (e.g. for shearing). A pinfold is for rounding up “stray” sheep in a village (and, according to some of the signs, billing the owner for not looking after them properly).

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=animal_enclosure#overview hasn’t troubled the scorers yet, but if it did we’d have to be careful not to group together items which had different function. At least “pinfold” and “pound” were functionally the same thing!

To be honest, I suspect that the question “should we map official data into OSM 1:1” is a bit of a red herring.

The bigger issue is that the writer of this diary entry is simply unable to discuss with other people about things; it’s as if they can’t imagine a world in which other people have evidence and experience that they don’t have.

I suspect that if there was no disagreement on road category tagging we’d have similar dramatics about something else.

** Andy (writing in a personal capacity)

“pinfold” would definitely be preferable to me to “pound”, as “pinfold” doesn’t have several other meanings (some similar, some very different).

We wouldn’t want people to get confused between (say) a police dog pound or a car pound and one of these historical animal enclosures.

At the risk of adding to the confusion, “penfold” is also used.

Also, it’s a bit odd that there are none of these in Scotland and few in Wales (but there are in Ireland and England). Maybe there are other names too? You mentioned perhaps trying to talk to CADW elsewhere; maybe the Scottish National Trust might be another avenue?

because the meaning of a certain design (like the pattern for natural=sand + wetland=tidalflat) is not documented anywhere

The map legend doesn’t currently show area colours at all - that’s something I’ve been wanting to add for a while. In this case (see here - actually relatively few of that combination) the two yellow colours mean sand and beach, and blue dots mean “tidal”, as opposed to black meaning “non-tidal”. I’m familiar with the ones off Portmeirion, and that representation seems reasonable there.

“Your interpretation of different wetland tags also does not seem to fully be as indicated. Example: osm.org/relation/5320809 - the tag combination in question, wetland=saltmarsh + surface=mud has world wide 48 occurrences.”

That’s a bug - relation 5320809 is in my database as “landuse nil, natural=mud, surface=mud”, which is wrong. It’s a similar bug to this one. When tags are set to conflicting things, you need to decide which should take precedence. Another example is here - should that show as an operational windmill (black) or a historic one (red)? Also see here for similar examples.

Re calculating the scale factor in SQL - I’ll have a look, thanks!

Re “non-natural=wetland wetland, I’ve only had a look at coastal combinations so far, not the more generic query. For tidalflat that’s wetland, saltmarsh, mud, beach, bare_rock, sand; for wet_meadow that’s currently wetland only. Usage without the “main” key happens with some other keys too, such as information, ruins and others.

There’s also potentially more to be done in splitting wetland types up. I process a lot as “normal” wetland:

wetland=bog   	      6681	"normal" wetland.  
wetland=marsh	      2899	"	 "
wetland=peat_bog      442	"
wetland=swamp	      157	"
wetland=fen	      81	"
wetland=seasonal      29	"
wetland=raised_bog    24	"
wetland=string_bog    5		"
wetland=yes	      4		"
wetland=upland_bog    2		"
wetland=tidalflat     2164	Actually, this is mostly mud.  Implies tidal=yes.
wetland=mud	      78	Also mud, also tidal=yes because a lot of water is assumed.
wetland=wet_meadow    1491	can I do meadow but with some blue dots?
wetland=saltmarsh     1359	part green and part blue, with green plants.  It's inherently tidal.
wetland=reedbed	      1262	mostly green, perhaps like saltmarsh but more green? 
wetland=pond	      8		Ignore.  Most are nodes; which renders as a label, which is OK

and some of those might benefit from a slightly different rendering.

For the benefit of anyone who may be stumbling across this, I’ve asked slice0 what evidence there is that e.g. https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/165672226 should be secondary rather than tertiary. I’ve also suggested in fairly strong terms that slice0’s attitude to the rest of the Au community needs to change (see e.g. the profile text at the time of writing and diary entries such as this one and the others.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

If anyone wants to contact the DWG directly please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of “[Ticket#2023122210000115] slice0”.

I was literally banned

No - and this is at least the fourth time that I personally have said it - YOU WERE NOT BANNED.

Perhaps if I was to try and convey that message by the means of interpretative dance communication might be more likely to occur? :)

but I have been banned talking about edits by fizzie with this very user

For the avoidance of doubt, the text of osm.org/user_blocks/15430 is public, and everyone can read what it says. It does not say that.

Addressing just one point from the above:

Data SA says it is a local road

What “Data SA says” is not binding on OpenStreetMap. The definition that OSM uses for “residential” is osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential , and for “unclassified” osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified . It may be that a certain national/federal or state classification happens to broadly map onto one OSM one, but even in the UK (which was used as a basis for the classifications in OSM) that isn’t 100%.

If you believe that something that should be tagged as X and someone else believes that it should be tagged as Y, you have to be able to talk about it. That isn’t possible if one person says things like “this edit is made up” or “Data SA says…”.

For the avoidance of doubt - you have not been banned from editing. osm.org/user_blocks/15430 was created 6 days ago and expired 5 days ago. You have made numerous edits during that period so you must know that saying you’ve been “banned” is at best hyperbole.

Both your recent diary entries (including osm.org/user/slice0/diary/402981#comments received comments that do not back up the statements your are making - people have made genuinely helpful suggestions to help you understand what is happening and what you ought to consider doing next.

Something that I often say with a DWG hat on to people involved in conflicts in OSM is “ask yourself why this is happening to you”. Most people can edit OSM - and even discuss with other people the best way to do that with a certain amount of rigour - without encountering the problems that you have encountered.

Your response to the comment on osm.org/changeset/144928924 seems at best inappropriate - whenever there are different opinions we have to be able to talk about the reason behind those opinions in order to understand where the other person is coming from. At its heart OpenStreetMap is a community project. We have to be able to work on it together and discuss things with each other to understand the best way to go forward.

Best Regards,

Andy (from OSM’s Data Working Group)

In the UK at least, I’m not sure I’d agree with “… But usually, humans do not go into the fox covert, and it is not a farmed area”.

Most of the examples near me in the UK look like very historic names, and don’t obviously correspond to areas where foxhounds operated in the last 50 years or so (30 years before and 19 years after the hunting ban). They are - at least now - typically small pieces of woodland, and are used pretty much like all small pieces of woodland are - to produce wood. There are or were 3 or 4 packs of foxhounds in the middle of that area, and it’s pretty much devoid of named fox coverts.

Names may be “more available” in the UK because an available source for OSM is the UK OS’ “OpenData StreetView” map layer - that’s where I’ll have got the name for e.g. osm.org/way/849949066/history from, and I suspect many others are similar.

Looking at taginfo, there are a few options:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=board_game#values

“cafe=board_game” seems to be the most popular. I was surprised not to see more “theme=board game” (there are lots of e.g. “theme=cat”).

Diary entries can’t be deleted, but I can hide it for you if you like :)