I tried contacting mapper (@mikkolukas ) and they failed to respond.
Have they discussed this mass edit or should it be reverted?
Is this fixme actually correct? (foot=yes even if implicit is not wrong or harmful and in my opinion would be an useful clarification)
Is such mass-fixme spamming welcome? (in my opinion: no, it just causes people to ignore fixmes altogether)
I encountered it while going through fixmes and it looks like something that should be reverted given that it looks invalid, edit fails to mention anything required by Automated Edits code of conduct - OpenStreetMap Wiki and mapper ignores changeset comments.
But it is not an area where I edit regularly, so maybe community was consulted and supports it?
I did previously mention this mass edit in another thread about the correct way to tag bicycle paths, but I donât know of any other discussion about this specific fixme-edit:
However, from what I understand of the discussion linked above, it is not necessarily correct that âfoot=yesâ is already an implicit value for a cyclewayâ in Denmark according to our local road traffic law.
I canât say with absolute certainty that the mass edit by @mikkolukas has not been discussed anywhere with the community but I personally havenât noticed it.
Note that explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables imply may be still useful. For example bare highway=path may mean either âsurveyed and all defaults applyâ or âmapped from LIDAR, not surveyed, may be privateâ. In contrast highway=path + foot=yes + bicycle=yes is more clear what is its meaning. The (sometimes changing) values in the tables below are not a reason to omit explicit tagging on ways in OSM and are also not a reason to remove existing tagging from ways.
Any objections to adding a link to this thread on all of those changesets?
(Edit to avoid pointless notifications): Iâve got to give him credit, at least he used fixme instead of actually deleting the tag. Wish I could say the same for the other tags, which he seems to have deleted possibly without discussion. And obviously thereâs no excuse for not responding to changeset comments.
As it stands it seems that mass reverting it would be a good idea. (and can be done by anyone, purely on basis âI am reverting an undiscussed mass editâ)
though waiting a bit would be a good idea before doing this
(also, should be done by someone who know what they are doing - I ma thinking about asking DWG to revert it)
no, I added already on one - will add on remaining
Thatâs not relevant here. âDonât map for the rendererâ (or for the router) means donât map things incorrectly so that the renderer (or router) gives the result you want. In this case adding access tags isnât mapping for the router, itâs just mapping accurately.
