Documenting controversial iD decisions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Documenting controversial iD decisions

Michael Reichert-3
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

Clifford Snow
Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up. 

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

john whelan-2
The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved which unfortunately is not the case.

If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a higher standard or some sort of change management system implemented.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up. 

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

Clifford Snow
Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't they all be held to the same standard?

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:
The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved which unfortunately is not the case.

If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a higher standard or some sort of change management system implemented.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up. 

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

john whelan-2
The problem is www.openstreetmap.org has a link to edit OSM.  When it was first put in it probably was a very reasonable thing to do but we do not have a change management system in place and over time iD has changed.

The real problem is new mappers will naturally edit OSM through the link thinking it is the "official"way to do it and the editor has been tested and approved etc.

However as stated iD is evolving and is becoming more powerful.  I understand in NYC a relative newcomer using the new validation feature of iD has made a very large number of changes to NYC and that I think is the sort of thing we wish to avoid.

So mentally split the idea of ID as an editor and what should be the default editor for newcomers for OSM.  The requirements seem to be different.  If iD is not the default editor on www.openstreetmap.org then treat it the same as any other OSM editor.

If it is then I think it needs to be held to a higher standard that protects new mappers from creating havoc.  Whether this is a new mapper switch or a reduced fork of iD or a requirement that you cannot edit the map unless you have completed an online course and passed an exam first I wouldn't like to say.  I do know that HOT for example has very high turn over of mappers so a forty hour training course might not be welcomed by everyone even if we could agree the syllabus.

Cheerio John

Clifford Snow wrote on 2019-05-28 8:10 PM:
Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't they all be held to the same standard?

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:
The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved which unfortunately is not the case.

If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a higher standard or some sort of change management system implemented.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up. 

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

--
Sent from Postbox

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Michael Reichert-3
I'm not sure if this should be added, but at the time how iD decided to add presets for lifeguards facilities was controversial.

We used to have documented on the wiki and in use:
emergency=lifeguard_place
emergency=lifeguard_base
emergency=lifeguard_tower
emergency=lifeguard_platform

Which each were to be used to map different kinds of lifeguard infrastructure on the ground.

Prompted by a request at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4918 it was then decided by Bryan at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037080.html that "We have too many tags for different kinds of lifeguards.  This is too confusing. I don’t want to have to show all these choices to iD users."

And it was decided by the iD maintainers to change the existing used and documented tag emergency=lifeguard_place to emergency=lifeguard, and only support that tag and none of the other types of lifeguard facilities.

On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 08:50, Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by john whelan-2

29 May 2019, 02:45 by [hidden email]:
I understand in NYC a relative newcomer using the new validation feature of iD has made a very large number of changes to NYC and that I think is the sort of thing we wish to avoid.
Note that it becomes problem only when
combined with ignoring outside opinions
about tagging schemes.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

Maarten Deen
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3
IMHO the strategy for adding roads also should be on this list. The
optionlist to add accessrights for "all, foot, motorvehicles, bicycle,
horse" resulting in a foot=yes, motorvehicle=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes
on all roads is creating redundant tagging.

Maarten

On 2019-05-29 06:29, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> I'm not sure if this should be added, but at the time how iD decided
> to add presets for lifeguards facilities was controversial.
>
> We used to have documented on the wiki and in use:
> emergency=lifeguard_place
> emergency=lifeguard_base
> emergency=lifeguard_tower
>
> emergency=lifeguard_platform
>
> Which each were to be used to map different kinds of lifeguard
> infrastructure on the ground.
>
> Prompted by a request at
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4918 it was then decided by
> Bryan at
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037080.html
> that "We have too many tags for different kinds of lifeguards.  This
> is too confusing. I don’t want to have to show all these choices to
> iD users."
>
> And it was decided by the iD maintainers to change the existing used
> and documented tag emergency=lifeguard_place to emergency=lifeguard,
> and only support that tag and none of the other types of lifeguard
> facilities.
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 08:50, Michael Reichert
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of
>> iD
>> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
>>
>> Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
>> mentioned.
>>
>> Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed
>> controversial so
>> far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well
>> to
>> aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those
>> involved
>> in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.
>> (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 29. May 2019, at 07:45, Maarten Deen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> IMHO the strategy for adding roads also should be on this list. The optionlist to add accessrights for "all, foot, motorvehicles, bicycle, horse" resulting in a foot=yes, motorvehicle=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes on all roads is creating redundant tagging.


and the wording for “highway=track”, which in iD is about limited access and not about agricultural use.


Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

Michał Brzozowski
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
That's a good point, let's make a list about MAPS.ME.

In the countries where there's a community to fix the mess it's not that bad, but elsewhere like the Middle East...

- Limited set of available POI types to add and no choice for "not on the list". Like people adding amenity=motorcycle_parking and naming it "car parking"
-  Making multiple "this place is gone or has never existed" each time user taps that button - many people report stuff after each map update if it's not fixed.
- Huge changeset bboxes
- No option to properly add addr:place
- Users led into adding notes and then uploading the exact same POIs themselves, but not closing the note
- Very complicated if not impossible to add generic notes. A few days ago one mapper added a note about a missing road that as a "filler" had a office=ngo named "Road" Then maps.me added this junk POI to the map...

Unlike iD, most of these seem to be an oversight. But I filed tickets at [hidden email] that were acknowledged over a year ago and nothing really was fixed. So this doing nothing is controversial to me, especially if it's a simple fix for many of the above.

I feel bad explaining to its mostly well meaning users that maps.me is not a great editor. For many, maps.me *is* OSM, or much worse, it is not and they are not aware of it.

To be fair, there is one thing that's less common - users adding personal bookmarks as POIs. I guess the percentage of maps.me mappers doing this has converged to the amount of people who are intrinsically bad at technology and/or reading comprehension, as there is now a warning at one stage that everyone will see your edits.

Michał

śr., 29 maj 2019, 02:13 użytkownik Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> napisał:
Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't they all be held to the same standard?

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:
The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved which unfortunately is not the case.

If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a higher standard or some sort of change management system implemented.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up. 

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

Yves-2
In reply to this post by Michael Reichert-3
To avoid hurting any sensibilities, I'd say this is maybe not the best way to go in its form.
Why not organizing a kind of audit with a review process that would be coordinated?
Otherwise I fear this page could just end up being a list for everybody pet rant.
Yves


Le 29 mai 2019 00:46:42 GMT+02:00, Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

lsces
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
On 29/05/2019 01:10, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't
> they all be held to the same standard?

As someone who still fights to keep potlatch2 working locally then yes
all options should be judged to the same standard, and there are
defaults on all editors that simply don't work or contradict what
another editor 'defaults' to providing. Invariably I end up on
'advanced' so I can override choices given even in potlatch2.

The 'standard' should be the current tagging guidelines and NOTHING
should prevent an editor from adding changes that ARE still evolving.
lifeguard facilities are a good example of the sort of additional detail
that is still developing. So being able to add that detail is important
even if it needs manual assistance. NO editor should enforce it's own
restricted view of tagging here.

I'm still of the opinion that what I will call 'primary' keys should be
more regulated, and that the API provides the standard for key elements
like highway and building. highway=platform is a key element of my view
of the data and simply extracting 'highway' should give all of the key
material for moving around the world ... along with waterway although in
my mind navigable 'waterway' elements are simply highway as well along
with railway. So fragmenting all these across other 'new' detail tags is
simply wrong in my higher level view of the data. Pedestrian areas
linking between road, rail and water transport DO need a little more
consistent tagging as it is not at all easy currently to decide just
what IS a correct set of tags to cover all pedestrian areas? It should
not depend on which editor was used to create the data :(

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting controversial iD decisions

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow

I don't think any level of whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) will change that the default editor on osm.org has a special (and very coveted) position.

So while I agree that in principle we should expect the same level of care from all apps that edit OSM data via the API, that doesn't change the status that iD has and the extra care that that requires. Not to forget that iD is by far the most prescriptive editor of the trio of iD, P2 and JOSM (together ~99% of all edits) and that its policies have, in every aspect, far more effect than with any other editor.

I have to say that I'm more than a bit disappointed with, as one of the champions of deploying iD as the default editor in 2013, where we've ended now. While there has always been some tension between the development team and the community, it has never amounted to the levels of ignoring best practices and community input we have now.

Simon

Am 29.05.2019 um 02:10 schrieb Clifford Snow:
Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't they all be held to the same standard?

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:
The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved which unfortunately is not the case.

If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a higher standard or some sort of change management system implemented.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up. 

Best,
Clifford

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.

Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the maintainer as well to
aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for those involved
in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions as well.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment