thanks

Hi, I think you are saying that there is a bike route but there is no permitted path for this section of the route. It doesn't sound right but you might be right. I hope to get out and inspect it but it won't be for a week or more. Thanks for the replies. Tony

Thinking it through further, the wiki for access=destination could do with more detail.
There are the roads with zero or 1 outside connection, I would argue that access=destination is a nonsense.

There are estates like here where its very unlikely that anyone would want to use it as a shortcut and the body corporate would not bother to prohibit transit. There are examples, I think it was one of yours where the estate was a wedge between 2 major roads and there was a through connection and it was signposted somehow prohibiting through traffic.

So far I have only asked for your reasons for your decision. They may well have asserted "Transit traffic forbidden", by signage or otherwise. I don't know. Do I see a better tag? You could just leave out the access=destination. It may not be better, it may be. At this point I'm just asking the question.

I may be misinterpreting it but there is bicycle signage and there is a note referring to the signage in previous edits.

The signage is, I think, for the section between the end of St Andrews and the end of McKay . You say Reserve Rd but maybe you mean Bluff or Cheltenham? I don't think you would see the signage from either Bluff or Cheltenham.

Did you visit location 671174716, v3 before you re-tagged it? There is signage. There is even a note about the signage.

thanks

thanks

Same comment from me. If changing paths to footways, it would be better if your comment reflected the change and the reason for it.
Thanks

Hi, given the unresolved discussions about changing cycleways to footways, the changeset comment "crossings added" would be better with "and changed cycleways to footways because they were unsigned"

OK, I think I understand. You split Way: 528014925 into Way: 528014925 and Way: 1039295750. You reused the poles from the old 528014925 and used them in the new 1039295750 which you created. Your changeset comment "footpaths added" was far from detailed enough. Its taken me 2 hours to understand what you have done. Please leave detailed description of your changes to help those who edit after you.
Thanks
Tony

Hi, the more I look the more confused I get. Way: 528014925 is a power line. In your V13 it has 126 nodes, in Bob42nd's V12 it has174 nodes, his V11 175nodes, in your V9 180nodes, your V8 179, your V7 176, your V6 173, your V5 172, your V4 176, your V3 175, V2sweeoon 154,

So it varies quite a bit from the original 4 years ago by wasgij. If all the original nodes were poles, does the map come anyway near reality now and what's the best way forward?

Its gone from 174 nodes to 126 nodes, if each node is a pole, how can that be right?

Thanks. Its all a bit complicated for me to understand. I think there are a lot less nodes in this power line after your edit. That suggests to me that you might have deleted poles. Are you sure that you have restored the power line to its original place?

Hi. It looks like you dragged a node to the other side of the road. I have checked Mapillary and this 66kV power line stays on the south side of the road here. Unless I have missed something please put this pole exactly where it was. To avoid dragging nodes, keep changesets small and check that the elements that you are changing make sense before you save

Hi. You have edited a 66kV power line. Way: 528014925 Was that your intention?

Hi, yes it is a gated community. The wiki says "Transit traffic forbidden" for destination, I can't see any signage prohibiting transiting. What did you base your decision on? Thanks Tony.

Hi Aaron

My sincere thanks on behalf of the Australian Open Street Map community for your many contributions to the map.

Unfortunately, there is some dissatisfaction in the Australian Open Street Map community with some of your larger edits including wiki changes on bikes and paths and the deletion of the Perth bike route network.

We ask you to seek consensus from the community before making large changes, particularly changes which reverse prior understandings and are large in scope.

Your changes to the wiki on bikes and paths are a particular issue in this letter. We propose a six step process in reverting the Australian Tagging Guidelines to community understandings of tagging practice.

1 get community support from talk-au for this process
2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
4 Dian tidys up the wiki
5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow the agreed process

We are at step 2. It is important that we know you have read this letter. Please reply by changeset comment or better by a post to https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/

This is your opportunity to put your case. There is a lot of discussion on talk-au regarding your edits. I suggest you read it and respond. Please let us know whether you agree with the 6 step process and if you do not agree, your reasons.

Thanks
Tony Forster

I asked the author of the previous bicycle=yes tag, they replied in Changeset: 115115901

They replied: Hi, I am aware that some paths in the area have been mistakenly marked bicycle=no. I am now in the area and carefully verifying by ground survey. In this instance, the path is obviously not "associated with a road" (i.e. not a VIC sidewalk), is habitually used by and fit for cyclists as a secondary use and has no explicit prohibition (despite other signage).