@thiskal, who is your comment directed at?

thanks for the discussion, the way this has gone is

1. either you are correct and all the nodes in Australia should be removed

or 2, you have made a honest error again and the nodes are with-in OSM policy and can be reverted

or 3, South Australia has a unique rule about junction nodes

the community needs to make a choice here

as you can see from the other Junction nodes in Australia they have been placed consistently in the same way the other nodes have been placed. Nobody has ever had issues with how they are used in Australia except once again you are saying that South Australia has a unique rule from the rest of the project.

You also have made many edits in the past which have been reverted because of a misunderstanding and also just happen to be my own edits, such as removing manoeuvre relations and deeming a turn illegal

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/regarding-removeal-of-manoeuvre-relation/111947

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/perfectly-fine-and-legal-turn-now-deemed-illegal/110311

These might just be a simple “human error” and thats ok it happens, at the very least if the DWG supports the removal in South Australia the wiki should be updated to reflect the unique policy for our state

there are many many uses of these nodes in Oceania https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1NLd except south australia doesnt have any, the only nodes that were removed just happened to be place by me as well. Not sure how to understand this correctly.

“A Y intersection is still a common intersection too, there’s nothing special about it.”

the intersections they were placed at were major intersections to make it easier to read the flow of traffic and exit roads along express highways. There is a good use for these nodes and I dont feel they were just placed randomly as they served a function. In your opinion when is it suitable to use these nodes?

here is my break down of that sentence and how it fits in with the rest of the wiki,

• junction=yes: This tag is used to identify a node as a junction in OSM.

• Do not use for junction nodes being shared by roads: If a node where roads intersect doesn’t have any special attributes other than being a common intersection, it should not be tagged with junction=yes.

• Without further properties: The node must have additional properties or context, such as being part of a named junction or having specific traffic flow controls, to warrant the use of junction=yes.

In essence, the junction=yes tag is reserved for more significant or complex junctions that have additional information or importance beyond just being a point where roads cross. For example, it could be used for named junctions or those with traffic signals, not just any point where two streets meet https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/18858/naming-junctions.

They are (were) placed at specific places where they warranted a actual function, which was to let people know of Y intersections. The very first line says “The tag junction=yes explicitly declares that an object is a road junction as such (crossroads, T intersection, Y intersection, any other type…).”

how is this allowed osm.org/user/DENelson83/diary/404471 but our beach data is removed due to it being a import, doesnt make sense, its exactly the same thing. non mechanical edits all done in ID.

well done, I wouldn’t dream of doing anything like this in Australia. The community would flag it as a import and delete it

i edited my diary entry

@Mateusz Konieczny thats exactly what I was thinking the policy it should have been removed under not because some random editors want to role play as copyright lawyers

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/apparent-use-of-unauthorised-source-for-beach-names-in-australia/108721/26

my reply is this incase it gets removed

I cant even see where the link is between the data that was on the map and the surf live saving club in the first place, what ever the link is it is completely undocumented. This is not the right way to go about a massive deletion like this of public and open data.

This public data has been on OSM for over 2 years, nobody owns the data.

this is open and public data for any use at all.

it is against OSM policy to delete a massive amount of legal data with out proper formalities.

have a look at my post history here to see how much data I have had to save in the past because of users deleting information based on poor understanding and dont even know what is legal and illegal.

I have no trust that people here know what they are doing in the legal sense, the changesets even have “apparently” in the edit which is not conclusive.

exactly what I thought as well, I thought edits like this would be welcomed. I actually did not even have anything to do with the community though out my time editing the map, this rustled some feathers for some reason. Anyway Im pretty sure OSM policy is on the side of using by-laws over “whats on the ground”. Good luck getting a definition of “whats on the ground” and then “actual use” which are meant to go together but its not possible 99% of the time. I have driven past bush fires before and its handy to know which one is the primary or secondary road to get the hell out quicky and safely, Our bush roads are all classified as territorial now so its a guess of which one to take by looking at your gps. Misleading classifications can lead to people getting killed in bush fire scenarios.

I have just emailed the DWG and ask for formal response to this issue. Becareful mate, you have to have balls of steal to go down this rabbit hole. “Whats on the ground” does not make any sense man.

hey mate this is a coincidence but I have experienced the same issue in South Australia I just wrote this in the forums

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/was-changing-the-road-classifications-to-align-with-south-australias-bypass-law-really-an-import/111445

I have even been threatened with a life time ban for using official data as you can see here https://imgur.com/a/qNROb4E

yes it make no sense, please post in that thread as it is going to be used as how the use of road classifications are established. I have been fighting this for months ever since I changed every road in SA to match official bylaw data. read my diary, read my forum posts. I have been abused, threatened, attacked, you name it. All for wanting to put facts in the project. Some people are seeking some sort of power with this information its crazy and started off so innocent and thought I was doing a huge service to the project.

believe me 1. and 2 has done done and repeated many times. I have thoroughly sort an understanding of the “whats on the ground” meaning.

I am at the my end with this garbage, I repeatably say to start a discussion in the forum and no one ever does. Its just haters with a support group bullying me at this point.

I have created a thread in the community forum of which you are free to use the popcorn emote as it’s intended use https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/user-fortera-au-who-has-incorrectly-policed-many-of-my-edits-in-the-past-and-has-made-false-allegations-against-me-is-now-questioning-my-classification-edits/111105

am now labeling that thread as hate speech, this comment https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-to-add-the-emoji-as-a-reaction/107167/103 is trying to rally everyone up and get me banned, this IS a plain and simple example of harassment the DWG and board are letting slide with out consequence

because my proposal was linked from that thread BEFORE it was closed, my proposal was brigaded from the users of that forum post.

when the joke is at the expense of others it’s called harassment