Please, I need a community wide analysis and opinion. Since May 2021, I noticed an individual with whom I used to cooperate often, making subjective deletions such as ways, most in nature or parks even though they have structures (steps, benches, bridges…) or topographic elements. He also inserted false data confirmed by others and made undiscussed wide country changes in DE and LU. He is also active in FR and recently in BE where I reactivated 9 of his notes and demonstrated there his errors but he keeps closing them without discussion. Discussion had been already done in 2021 but he made linguistic discrimination (we have 3 official languages in LU), demeaning statements and pseudo psychological analysis on me via PM. DWG has been warned, @SomeoneElse and @woodpeck suggested to cooperate and discuss it here. Though, because of his bad attitude, created 8 different accounts, some being sock-puppets, made false claims and unethical statements, he doesn’t show any reasonableness. His latest account is Kugelbaum confirmed by another contributor.
The most recent example I surveyed again is a deleted bridge and trails on the other side leading to a touristic POI, he claims not existing. He creates notes and shows a photo. The problem is that i’m convinces he misplaces them intentionally for his claim. Starting from the location on his photo I demonstrate in this video where the bridge is & clear photo evidence.
Have you brought the issue to the attention of the DWG? Perhaps you have not, given your past complaint that the DWG is treating you unfairly. Three years is an awfully long time to wait.
Have you commented on the problem changeset? For example this changeset from your linked description is where the bridge was removed, yet there are no comments on it. I would expect you to say something like “hey there, you removed this bridge, however, I believe it is still there because <reasons>.”
Step 1: Comment on the offending changeset
Step 2: Have discussion with the mapper about the edit in question
Step 3: If still not resolved, then contact DWG
Has been done for the changes that you feel are wrong?
Yes, they had promised an investigation and an answer. They never gave any conclusion though apart few months ago where they suggested to come here. Because of this status quo, this gave the individual enough time to conceal himself several times with his 8 accounts, some being sock-puppets.
Yes, commented on CS and we used to communicate a lot. It turned out I discovered he was lying. For a discussion on the the recent bridge deletion, I commented on the note because that’s where he claims there is “no bridge”. He tried to close it 2 times without discussion.
First of all, bravo on visiting these places in person to do a survey and take pictures. I have been involved in similar disputes about what on the ground reality is and also have gone to take pictures. Let me give you some advice that will help you in these kinds of disputes.
As I understand it, a mapper comes along and surveys and decides “there’s no bridge here” and removes it.
So you go visit the spot and find the bridge, and take a picture:
Put the bridge back on the map. Make sure you put as much detail as possible on the bridge (width, surface, etc, just go wild).
Add an image tag and insert the URL to the photo of the bridge from Wikimedia Commons.
Comment on the changeset that removed the bridge and politely state that you took a photo of the bridge and have restored the bridge and linked the photo.
Here is an example of an OSM feature where I have had to do this:
Now, once you have done this, that object is quite safe from removal. If the user deletes the bridge again, you send a polite email to the DWG stating that “User XYZ removed a bridge in changeset XYZ. I surveyed this bridge and took a photo of it, and restored that bridge with the photo tagged in changeset XYZ. Despite this survey, user XYZ again removed the bridge in changeset XYZ.”
Done, simple, no dropbox links, long documents or spreadsheets or anything else. Just a simple, clear-cut case where an edit was wrong, you corrected it with a survey, and then the and follow-on removal was quite wrong. The email to DWG is short and to the point. They’re busy and deal with a lot of disputes do please do try to make it easy and clear-cut for them.
If you follow this script, you will have a MUCH easier time getting your quality assurance efforts to stick.
@ZeLonewolfthanks for the compliment and advice! I never experienced such intense issue with anyone since I’ve started contributing in 2013. Sure, there have been some occasions where I discussed with contributors because we had doubts, but it happened with due respect and some with whom I’m even happy that we contact each other because we share advices, new findings, fun facts… To be honest, I didn’t come often here in the Forum neither before this. Used more to talk about tagging in OSM’s Wiki directly on the relevant key or tag.
I looked at your evidence, and if the videos were taking where you say they were, I think you are justified in mapping the bridge and the path. To me, a plank, especially one that wide, is a bridge. In addition to @ZeLonewolf 's excellent advice, you might want to add some additional tags, such as width=* to the bridge, and perhaps a description=. To the path you might add trail_visibility= to let users and other mappers know that this path might be a little difficult to follow.
@tekim my video starts on the exact spot where the other individual took the photo and I filmed up to where the bridge is. So I think it is safe to say that it’s a trustful evidence.
I am not the original contributor of the bridge. I had added back the trail though with surface and trail visibility because of the touristic POI on the other side. Did not record it in OSM because I’m unsure of some tagging details but it is quite visible anyway, when people see it, I believe they get quite a surprise.
I would say generally speaking that taking a video is unnecessary. If you’re using your smartphone, the picture that it takes probably includes exif data, which records the timestamp and position of the photo. If you upload the original photo, Wikimedia Commons will also record that exif data. If you look at the photo I uploaded in my private gate example, you will see the exact timestamp and lat/lon where I took the photo. So unless what you’re trying to show absolutely requires video, the exif-tagged photo perfectly captures your observation and proves when and where.
It sounds like you were trying to disprove the other mapper who cited the nearby weir as the presumed bridge. That’s not really necessary if you have positive evidence of the bridge. Just cite your evidence, tag the bridge and move on. Trying to document why the other mapper is wrong just invites conflict that doesn’t really help anything. Our job as mappers is to document reality, not document other mappers.
I am new to this community but what stands out to me is the usage of multiple accounts here that make edits hard to track (if what OP says is true which I assume here).
I wonder if there is any rule/guideline on using multiple accounts, especially in bad faith. It would be easier to track and, if necessary, revert edits from one account than tracking multiple. It would also establish a more complete reputation that would be grounds for sanctions.
I looked at Etiquette and Good practice which does not seem to have such rules.
The DWG will absolutely take action if someone is using multiple accounts to evade a block. The important thing is to establish an editing issue and then a pattern in the first place. At that starts with a focused report on one specific problem edit at a time. Using multiple accounts by itself is not specifically a problem.
In the past, I did provide @woodpeck with evidences to resolve the conflict. After months we still had no response and in the mean time ex tomolobla started changing account because I was recovering the elements with evidences. That procedure didn’t work out for me in this conflict and I need to precise that for three years this impacted badly my health.
Indeed I went this far with a video because he is posting misplaced photos, they constitute misinformation. On the note with the photo (now deleted but I save dit), M!dgard had intervened and talked about the video showing the bridge. Yet Kugelbaum stated there is only a “plank” further East. Going from the location of that plank, up to where he shot his photo without seeing the bridge seems impossible to me. In my opinion it was intentionally since from the track it is already visible, also on my video).
I find this behavior rather being nefarious. With all due respect to your POV, I think he is the one creating conflict because he stands against what is real and OSM relies on observations of reality.
To me, I could spotted him right away maybe because i’ve been on this for 3 years. @M_dgard confirmed me that Kugelbaum is the same person. He has been doing this since I’ve been restoring his deletions with evidences on the changesets or because a DWG member blocked him.
As you can see on Kugelbaum’s account, he has been editing since 30 Nov. 2023. I would like to warn the DWG of his activity but we were both asked to come here and discuss this issue instead of contacting them, otherwise we could be blocked. I agree up to a certain point that we can try to deal with an issue community wise, but if it goes on and on like this has been for 3 years, it’s up to the DWG to get on their responsibilities or us to convince them to do so.
Hi everyone, finally chiming in because of the victim card being played a taaad too much whilst twisting many things. I’ll show you my viewpoint (without direct links due to 3link limit).
First off, Kugelbaum has not deleted or deactivated a single forest track/path without posting a street complete photo-note. Unfortunately limited to 1 photo as 1+ it tends to crash. These were/are fun 20+km long hikes.
Yes, deleting the bridge was a big mistake, that I’ve now fixed. GPS pointed me to the weir, I had already uploaded the note without seeing the bridge/plank around the corner and without a passable way on the other side I didn’t find it necessary to have the bridges/planks being rendered.
Ok, so as stated in some dwg blocks, S has himself avoided bans by using his Digital-line account, created straight after the first block in 2017. S has a particular recognizable style but here is recent spelling mistake proof: node 11197289323 history node 4153064655 history No-more-anger is another one No-more-anger blocked by woodpeck | OpenStreetMap. Amongst some other I have suspicions on but for the sake of errors and insulting somebody wrongfully, I don’t post them publicly.
Definition time: For me a track/path should be rendered on the map if it is crossable at least on foot, so if it isn’t permanently full of high weeds, saplings of considerable size, or tons of branches from old wood cutting. It has to be distinguishable from the ground because otherwise we can just go straight through the forest. We also can’t map every forestry track that has ever been in use, and miight become used again in a few years, because otherwise there is no wood but only tracks visible. I use and edit maps so I know where to walk or cycle.
S regularly explodes when somebody removes ways that end up not existing at all or being impassable for most people. Second guessing everything to his favour, not trusting any other mapper who has actually been on the place itself. Examples: (I don’t maintain a list, so keeping it short.)
changeset 102199648
way 603101581 history
changeset 124929084
Other mapper’s who regularly find inexisting ways but stay rather quiet because they know why:
changeset 145249532 (“It’s not the first time S has created a way that doesn’t exist.”)
changeset 131245821
See also this person’s findings: user Khushaldas%20Badhan notes
I am trying to say this rather neutrally, S is mostly a second guesser not mapping from surveys. (You only need to check the changeset times.) Combining very thin, unreliable Strava heatmap lines with shading in lidar hillshade, doesn’t work without going on the ground. Of course there will be heatmap activity on inexisting mapped ways because people unbeknown get routed over them and then actively look for them on the ground. Important: While recording to Strava. One of my key criticism: S doesn’t think of the people who upload to Strava when they get lost in the forest or shortcut straight through it off real tracks/paths. How many do you think correct their gpx recording files, let alone know how to do it? Not talking about problematic MTB groups building temporary illegal trails that can massively heat up the heatmap. (I also MTB myself, don’t see it as hate on an activity group.)
Then there’s things like mapping wood harvester trails straight from fresh imagery of recently cut forests. From experience I can tell that these are sooo often overgrown instantly and full of impassable wood/branches left to rot.
I have written this trying to balance the thread out. Knowing full well I will never ever be able to convince S who seems to have an obsession with many contributors that is truly, utterly scary. I am sure he has good intentions deep down somewhere but he’s not objective at all, missing the big picture and it seems he just can’t work with other humans.
I make no secret about having a strong suspicion on soon seeing perma bans. Yes, plural.
That said, there is more than these stupid forest ways that I’d love to be able to complete in my home grounds.
Congrats on reading this far.
I don’t know what made you conclude this, but I certainly did not intend to confirm this, since I haven’t checked. Edit: since I reached out to Kugelbaum too, and reported that he replied, it was indeed most likely to be the same person. I do object to this wording though. You make it seem like I did or knew more than I did.
(For the record: I am not a member in this conflict, only a mediator trying to work with humans who are in conflict.)
Thank you so much for your post! Please keep reading, I could demonstrate how Kugelbaum made me responsible for a mistake that himself made (my paragraph with Screenshot of reverted changeset 96931968) and how his claims are biased.
Photos that obviously you misplace conveniently while shooting unrelated objects.
Digital-line is another contributor since 2017 i know personally. It happened we contributed at the same moment with different JOSM versions.
Him 2023.09.13 at 13:16 and 2023.09.13 at 13:05
Me 2023.09.13 at 13:19 and 2023.09.13 at 13:08
Pitty we don’t have access to IP logs to show we are from different countries…
No-more-anger is indeed an account I had created, but I don’t use it really, it has only 14 edits. I created it because I found it unfair that woodpeck blocked me whereas I gave him evidence I had been on terrain. This is another issue where i need to contact the board members.
Agree with the definition… Nevertheless you do delete ways that are totally walkable. About 25 examples i’ve enclosed here are evidence with photos, videos and even several other people! What’s your excuse for those deletions? You are not the one who decides if there are many or not. That’s a subjective selection!
Same goes when you use decide what is authorized or not, or use the term illegal whereas there is nothing to prove so. Beautiful example on this note: you deleted a track over grass for the reason “Let people take the semi paved way around”, despite vehicle traces and a touristic info board in the middle of that grass area. Where is the logic? Can’t you realize that maybe some years ago there were heavier vehicle trails and since then grass has grown, or is it because it’s not crossable as you say? No huge weeds, branches, fallen trunks though, according your definition!
changeset 102199648: Just a normal discussion between 2 contributors, everything explained, none of your direct business.
way 603101581: it is usable on the S side as visible on your photo yet you erased it. N end, there is a trail for 15m I surveyed during night and I could find the entrance but the hill is steep and it’s possible that at its end people try to find different safe portions between trees hence less visible. It’s one of those ambiguous trails.
changeset 124929084: just another normal discussion, none of your direct business
changeset 145249532: a track i created five years ago and he deleted a month ago! Isn’t nature allowed to grow/evolve? You can’t even realize that…
changeset 131245821: You talk about way 892073686 going on field, I’ve been there from N side. Revert my CS 96931968 and you will see it’s a new way after splitting your track, yes you are the original creator of that track! On terrain the only continuity possible was on the field’s border. On OSM, I had make sense out of you mistaken addition, cut and displace further E on the field because it was not crossable where you placed it. YOU HAVE SUCH A NERVE to say i created it!!! Screenshot of reverted changese 96931968! I had explained you this years ago, you still don’t get it…
Khushaldas%20Badhan notes: all paths have been created at least 3 years ago, some more, are paths leading to hunting stands and are rarely used, for the tracks + walls I’m not concerned at all. Again, your analysis is flawed just like the previous example.
I’ve contributed to OSM for a decade, encountering occasional differing opinions but nothing serious. You, as what I have observed, are a very unethical. You use sock-puppet accounts like eyasonu here, you propagate rumours about my private life (according @woodpeck ), you create misplaced photos and claim objects do not exist…
To the real contributors reading, I’ve learned with time that OSM success hinges on objective actions: go on terrain, observe existence, insert it in OSM with the appropriate tags. I just hope people here will check at least some of my counter-argumentation to realize what is really going on.
I digged through the user blocks and found the original block issued by the DWG and a follow-up that suspected block evasion.
This might give additional perspective so I thought it’s worth sharing here.
My personal summary of the DWG position: Both mappers should not make edits that could be viewed as controversial and should seek community consensus for their mapping disagreements. They should both refrain from personal attacks and bad-mouthing the other person.
So I think the approach of both here is flawed: They should try to find a consensus on mapping styles within the community that they both can then adhere to. Instead this thread seems to feature many personal attacks which the DWG warned against.
I appreciate that your try to sort this out, thanks! However that’s not the original block. Everything started on this one 3 years ago. The last 9 blocks are all because of this complex issue. Dare I say, woodpeck is still in charge of the ticket since the issue was never given any verbal conclusion. I was waiting in the hope but then ex tomolobla changed account to occult himself. Because of woodpeck’s silence, I tried to expose this person through comments and fixme tags explaining directly on data. UnfortunatelySomeoneElse and woodeck interpreted this as ad-hominem. According definition or see this diagram, I was rather trying to counterargument with the aim to stop the on going deletions.
I totally would love to find a consensus and get rid of this issue but this is only possible with reasonable people who are honest and ethical. All my speech here is just an attempt to demonstrate this person is not at all reasonable. Also how could I also forgive someone who spreads rumours about my private life and creates sock-puppet accounts to contact others and discredit me…
Edit: also this issue is not only about mapping style. In my point of view, it’s about deletions of features that exist on the ground.
and some long-form prose since I still 
I never experienced such intense issue with anyone since I’ve started contributing in 2013. Sure, there have been some occasions where I discussed with contributors because we had doubts, but it happened with due respect and some with whom I’m even happy that we contact each other because we share advices, new findings, fun facts… To be honest, I didn’t come often here in the Forum neither before this. Used more to talk about tagging in OSM’s Wiki directly on the relevant key or tag.
