Hi, this changeset should be reverted, see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015093.html I would rather you did it

Hi. I have been waiting for you to fix this changeset since October 5. You continue to retag about bicycles when it is more important that you fix previous errors. It is better that you are involved, otherwise your positive contributions will get lost. I am getting close to reverting this changeset.

way/839517705 appears shared see https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-38.0824165&lng=145.278895167&z=17&pKey=755857208452656&focus=photo&x=0.5145477298323192&y=0.44188442234732794&zoom=0

There is signage https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-38.08415575000001&lng=145.29215316700004&z=17.66803903824338&pKey=813332002931227&focus=photo&x=0.5143697209018943&y=0.3354435869023135&zoom=0
shows a bicycle sign. It either refers to #689775448 which you change here from foot=yes highway=cycleway
to foot=yes highway=footway
or #839517705 from which you removed bicycle=designated about 1 month ago

Hi, the easiest way I know is to install Josm editor osm.wiki/JOSM and its reverter plugin. If there have been no edits of those nodes since, its a single click and the whole changeset is reverted. Its a bit more complicated if changes have been made since. Its worth the time learning Josm because it is a more powerful editor than Id. If you need more help, ask me or on the talk-au list.

Hi. On talk-au on October 5 I gave notice that I intend to revert this changeset if I don't hear from you. The DWG has ruled on bicycle tagging, see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015093.html I would prefer that you were involved in the reversion.

thanks

I see it now the second sign to the right. Sorry, missed it last time

thanks adamh and HighRouleur, I tried mapillary but couldn't make out the signs

See comments #112029131 and #112029738

I doubt you went there considering Covid. I have checked street level images and I can't find any legible signs in street level imagery. Please give details with if possible URL's

Hi, this and the previous 2 changesets are about adding access =private
What is your source? I doubt you went there considering Covid. In the previous 2 you mention signage. I cant find any legible signs in street level imagery. Please give details with if possible URL's

Hi, yes your terminology is fine. Yes I understand that there is a coastal path made up of inconsistently tagged segments. Common sense indicates that the segments very likely have the same legal status. But what, foot bike or shared? You say that your source data included street level imagery. What else did it include? Note that Google Street View cannot be used.

Thanks for the reply. What was the "virtual ride"? Did it include street level imagery? "inconsistencies of some of the tags ... hence were updated to suit." What was inconsistent with what? Updated to suit what?

Hi, I am curious, Way: 657874126 in New Zealand, 3 months ago, it seems unlikely that you were there considering Covid, What was your source for bicycle=designated foot=designated highway=cycleway

Hi HighRouleur. Thanks for further clarifying your understanding of the law. This is probably a discussion best held on the talk-au list rather than here, because of its complexity. You say "unless there is specific signage to indicate that bikes are permitted, then bikes are not permitted" Can you give more information on this? Was the advice verbal or written? Is there a URL that you can give? Then there is the issue of whether OSM should stick to ground verifiable facts and leave the interpretation of law to the routing software. Your readiness to engage in discussion is appreciated, thanks, but please do not do more mass retaggings till you have a consensus.

OK, good description, thanks. But it doesn't appear to be between a building and a road but between playing fields and a road. And part of it wraps around the oval and is not in a road related area. You haven't answered whether you have recently been there. And the 56 other changes need documentation. Are they all located between the front of a house or building and a road? Have you been there recently? I appreciate that you are replying to comments, thank you for that. But I request that you stop this kind of retagging till you have reached a concensus with the mapping community.

Hi HighRouleur. Most if not all of your foot/cycle changes are not in "road related areas" (See rules 11-13 of the Road Rules) and not covered by the Victorian no riding on footpaths rule. It is possible that I am wrong, I am not a lawyer, but there is sufficient doubt about this to ask you to stop and engage seriously with the mapping community. Please stop retagging and resolve your outstanding disputes.

Thanks for the reply but I can't see any change in the tags, unchanged from about 12 days ago.
access private
bicycle no
the access tag is ok as you describe it but I think the bicycle tab should go

Hi. Ive just checked the first way/903991686. You have changed bicycle designated
foot designated
highway cycleway
To highway footway
Your description was "Changing shared paths to foothpaths as they had been incorrectly assigned." On what basis did you decide that they were incorrectly assigned? Are there Mapillary photos for example? Did you physically go there? Was there signage?