I’m proposing an automated edit to remove a note added in a previously undiscussed mass edit that falsely indicates that any road that is part of the South Australian Major Traffic Road Network must be tagged as highway=trunk. Discussions on Discord and recent events have shown that this is not the case, and this could mislead newer mappers.
I’ve documented the proposed edit on the Wiki at Automated edits/Fortera/Note on South Australian highway=trunk - OpenStreetMap Wiki and am looking for any feedback or objections for this.
I agree. The note discourages mappers from making any changes, in conflicts updating the tagging based on what’s on the ground, which goes against the core of OSM.
I haven’t had any opposition to this so far, I’m planning on doing this at some point over the weekend (most likely Sunday). I’ll update the Wiki page with the relevant changesets and post here once it’s done.
@aharvey is there a difference between “based on what’s on the ground” and “actual nature of the road” I object to this mass edit until we can clear up exactly what these words mean.
I can not see any discussion that, talks about south australias major traffic network and being classed incorrectly as trunk on on the map, can you please link me to the discussion or we can start one here. Can you please start off by stating why you believe are are incorrectly labelled as trunk. I object to this edit until this is cleared up fully
This edit has nothing to do with the classes of the highways, but the note added in an undisclosed mass edit by yourself.
The note claims that the highways must be trunk due to being part of that network, with no evidence provided in the note or changeset stating as such. It also discourages editing based on what’s on the ground, a core tenet of OpenStreetMap.
I ran out of character space in the note and had to leave some information out. The link in the note links to the official major traffic network in South Australia. Australian Tagging Guidelines/Roads - OpenStreetMap Wiki The wiki says exactly this “The classifications provided below are a guide, but mappers should classify highways based on the actual nature of the road, rather than any formal route designation.” as aharvey says above “what on the ground” as no correspondence to “actual nature of the road”. “Major highways and cross-city roads that don’t qualify as a motorway.” that sentence describes The Major Traffic Network and the reason why they are correctly classified as Trunk roads, the official “actual nature of the road” The note is to convey this information maybe it should be reworded rather than deleted. The only other question would be who gets to determine what “the actual nature of the road is”
I’m happy for others to share their interpretation, but to me the actual nature of the road is what’s on the ground, what you’d experience looking at the road.
That sentence describes roads of a certain type, however having looked at the SA Major Traffic Network, these do not line up 1:1. Some roads in the major traffic network would match up to the wiki’s descriptions of lower classifications of roads.
I’d also like to add that the most recent version of the SA Major Traffic Network I can find is 12 years old now, is there a newer version that’s at least more recent?
“The classifications provided below are a guide” followed by “but mappers should classify highways based on the actual nature of the road, rather than any formal route designation.” is exactly what the wiki says. What you are describing should only be treated as a guide. The actual nature of the trunk roads are the major traffic route based on official government data. I can not see anywhere on the wiki where “whats on the ground” has any authority. You are not talking about the note at all either, you are talking about the classifications which should be left for another topic.
In regards to mapping what’s on the ground: Ground truth - OpenStreetMap Wiki specifically talks about on the ground being higher priority than data sources.
And the mention about the MTR not being 1:1 with roads is to point out that the note is invalid and should be removed.
I have seen and read that wiki page before. It does not give authority for one truth over the other. It simply describes the terms. “And the mention about the MTR not being 1:1 with roads is to point out that the note is invalid and should be removed.” They are not currently a 1 to 1 in the direct classification. some sections of the Major Traffic Route are Primary and other sections are Secondary.
in reply to this “I’d also like to add that the most recent version of the SA Major Traffic Network I can find is 12 years old now, is there a newer version that’s at least more recent?” the link in the note takes you to the current Major Traffic Route, if you want a visual you can also go here Location SA Viewer and turn on the dataset by going to Datasets>Infrastructure and Utilities>Transport>Functional Hierarchy and check “Major Traffic Routes”
note that such edits can be mass reverted without mass edit/bot approval
Changeset: 141776631 | OpenStreetMap and other similar were apparently performed in violation of Automated Edits code of conduct - OpenStreetMap Wiki and can be reverted by anyone at any time without discussion, without further reason.
It is usually nice to recheck things to avoid mistakes and fortera_au did it, but it was not required.
Also, “This road is part of South Australia’s Major Traffic Road Network and is classed as a Trunk Road in Compliance with OSM Guidelines” claim is misleading and this note should be removed also for that reason.
As you point out here, South Australia’s Major Traffic Road Network classification does not trump all other sources.
and not all Major Traffic Route are trunk making this note even more confusing
official government data is one of sources for that, but not sole one
I guess it can be explicitly mentioned at highway=trunk wiki page if it is unclear
haha yeah thats 100% correct which is why I put it in without question. Its just a note.
“As you point out here, South Australia’s Major Traffic Road Network classification does not trump all other sources.”
and that is true aswell, which means any changes outside of government sources would need to be discussed to avoid being someones personal opinion. We would need to make guidelines that make the classifications of roads clear if they are outside of what the “actual nature of the road is”
as I have pointed out in my previous diary entry slice0’s Diary | the DWG rules placed on my edits have already ruined the map | OpenStreetMap that changeset makes no factual sense at all, it does not comply with any wiki rules and is factually wrong. We need to avoid this on a state-wide level.
“official government data is one of sources for that, but not sole one”
can you point me to the other sources please
Hi folks, moderator here. Hope your weekend is going well. Just a reminder that this topic is about the proposed mechanical edit. This topic is not about the classification of roads in South Australia. If you would like to discuss a particular tagging question then please open a new topic.
@TheSwavu yes it should be just about the note, however the wiki that fortera created for this edit includes parts about changing the classifications on the end. Whether that will be part of a later discussion or trying to tack it on the end of this discussion who knows. But I am glad you caught that aswell.
There’s nothing in the proposal about changing highway classification, the last bit of it is about manually editing any notes with extra information.
Thanks for pointing that out Mateusz.
I’ve now completed the edit, wiki has been updated (Automated edits/Fortera/Note on South Australian highway=trunk - OpenStreetMap Wiki) and the changeset in question is Changeset: 147036547 | OpenStreetMap.