Reviewing recent changes by Flap Slimy Outward

[Baconcrisp]

Repeated disruptive editing and ignoring community consensus by @Flap_Slimy_Outward in Grand Junction, CO

I was reviewing edits made in my area this morning and noticed that @Flap_Slimy_Outward has undone a large number of local corrections I recently made. Despite being asked on multiple occasions to reach out to the local community before editing here, they have chosen to ignore that advice. I used local knowledge, ground surveys, and official local sources for all of my edits.

I am bringing this here to request DWG intervention, as this user is refusing to cooperate with local mappers. I am happy to revert the incorrect data myself, but I need assistance in getting this user to stop ignoring local consensus and to compel them to discuss their changes with the local community before editing.

The changes in question include:

• Changeset 185119046: Incorrect ref added to I-70 based on an incorrect relation location.

• Context: The US 50 route relation currently extends to the 22 Road exit in OSM, but this information is out of date. I confirmed via CDOT’s * COtrip map that US 50 now exits on 13 Road/CO 139 (this is also backed up by the Wikipedia * map for US 50). Furthermore, highway names are used as the main street names in many places in Grand Junction, which can be verified via street signs on Mapillary * this one.

• Changeset 185118764: Incorrectly removed/modified refs and route information.

• Context: They modified ref tags based on the outdated data mentioned above, incorrectly changed the name of a local bus route (which already had the source for the name tagged on the route itself), and improperly altered ref and destination:ref information on link roads. I had previously fixed all of this using local sources (ground imagery, government data, and in-person surveys).

• * Changeset 185118837: Incorrectly modified highway classifications and destination:ref/ref information.

This user was previously given explicit instructions by SomeoneElse regarding this exact behavior, which they have completely ignored:

@SomeoneElse

Can you please NOT change any name or any ref or any classification of any highway in the US or elsewhere until you have proved yourself more capable of “reading the room” when it comes to working out what is appropriate and what not.

@SomeoneElse

If you like to make one of these sorts of changes, please bounce it off this forum (or the DWG) first, and don’t proceed without unamimous approval.

[SD_Mapman (Miles)]

@Baconcrisp

I confirmed via CDOT’s * COtrip map that US 50 now exits on 13 Road/CO 139

That’s using Google as a basemap, I wouldn’t trust that even if it was allowed as a source.

Looking at the official data, Highway Data Explorer, there’s no official CDOT route for US 50 in the area. I maintain CO for https://travelmapping.net/, and we just have US 50 following US 6 to maintain a continuous route since signage is spotty at best.

Moving forward, I think the best path would be to:

• Revert the three changesets above.
• Break the overall US 50 relations into signed and unsigned portions (similar to other CO US routes). The signed portion would end at Exit 26, then the unsigned portion would follow US 6 west and I-70 to Utah (can be flexible on where the transition is, looks like there’s some signage for 50 west closer to Grand Junction). This IMO is the best way to deal with CO not believing in concurrencies.

@Baconcrisp Since you’re active in the area let me know if that makes sense to you. I haven’t been to Grand Junction in a while and my knowledge could be out of date.

[Baconcrisp]

That is a good suggestion. Thank you! I’ll look into this and see what I can dig up/learn and go from there.

[Flap_Slimy_Outward]

So, the relation of US 50 follows I-70, but the ways tagged as ref=US 50 follow CO 137 and US 6. I wasn’t sure which one was right, but (IIRC) before I came into the area, it was part of I-70.

Also, I didn’t change any highway names this time. Which part of US 50 is correct: The one that follows I-70 or the one that follows CO 137 and US 6?

Edit for context again: I assumed I messed up the US 50 relation by routing it along “U.S. 6 & 50” rather than I-70. So, in an attempt to undo my previous changes to the area (that weren’t cleanly undone), I attempted to rectify this error by putting US 50 back onto I-70. If US 50 does, in fact, follow US 6 instead of I-70, then I am sorely mistaken and sorry. In that case, the US 50 relation should be rerouted onto that.

[silversurfer83]

And you should have bounced this off the community before you did it.

[Flap_Slimy_Outward]

I wanted to fix my edits so bad…

I have reverted my edits in Grand Junction here and here. I’ll leave it to the locals to decide how best to fix the US 50 relation.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@Flap_Slimy_Outward

I wanted to fix my edits so bad…

then propose edits first as clearly instructed

[people128256]

There was a problematic edit this user made where they retagged the entirety of OR-217 with a ref of 144, thereby causing every single routing app to display “OR 144” along with “OR 217”.

Relation: ‪Beaverton-Tigard Highway‬ (‪12143998‬)

[SD_Mapman (Miles)]

Yeah I think ref:odot is the better tag here, this changeset needs to be reverted.

Also that change didn’t even follow the wiki: Tag:network=US:OR:Named - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Considering it’s been two months since the initial change, I just reverted it to follow the wiki tagging schematic.

[Minh_Nguyen (Minh Nguyễn)]

@SD_Mapman

Also that change didn’t even follow the wiki: Tag:network=US:OR:Named - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Right, Oregon still has a system like California used to:

@Minh_Nguyen

These routes used to be known as Legislative Routes because they completely differed from the Sign Routes posted by the Department of Highways (now Caltrans).

I think we’re on like the fifth state that we’ve had to educate FSO about because it doesn’t do things the same way as Nevada. (Why presume that any state does things like Nevada?)

[people128256]

I entirely agree.