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).

Hi. Can you please give your reasoning for tagging Seaford Foreshore Walking Track (41938008) bicycle=yes, its relevant to later changeset discussion.

Hi. Thanks for your reply here and your other replies tonight. Tony

Hi. I presume your tagging is based on the absence of any signage concerning bikes? Thanks.

Hi. I presume your tagging is based on the absence of any signage concerning bikes? Thanks.

Hi. The name "Seaford Foreshore Walking Track" clearly indicates the primary function but I couldn't find any signage or publication that actually prohibits bicycles. Do you know of any?

Hi. I assume your reason for changing 1007542000, v2 and
1007541999, v2 from cycleway to footway is because there is no signage about bicycles? Thanks.

Hi, please excuse this question from Australia, and sorry if I am not familiar with US tagging. Are you Mike Landis in Wandrer.earth? Your tagging though sufficient for Wandrer.earth might be improved for OSM. bicycle=no is used for transport mode specific things (at least in Australia), I am guessing that Charles Street (11592169, v4) might be better tagged with access=no or access=private because access restrictions are not limited to bicycles.
Thanks, Tony, Melbourne Australia

Hi Sebastian. I understand that you have already given your reasoning for similar changes. I have picked this one out for two reasons. Firstly because it has the feel of a cycleway or shared path in the absence of any signage that I can see, it runs between factories and a creek. Secondly the history of way/860898496. philam48 1 year ago tagged it as a cycleway. You changed it to a footway, then a cycleway then a footway. On October 4 2021, the DWG ruled that it would "proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors". I, acting for the DWG reverted it back to philam48's original cycleway refering back to the DWG decision https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015093.html
Please stop undoing the reversions of your work. Please comply with community tagging standards. Thanks, Tony

thats good but you didnt remove the bicycle=no

Hi
This is not my understanding, your edits were referred to the DWG and they made a ruling that did not support your position.