Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Andy Townsend
On 27/05/2019 12:08, Jo wrote:
> And the disease is spreading:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd
>
> I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?
>
Suggestions about tag improvements by an editor are not a new thing -
JOSM has had them for ages.  Occasionally there are examples of people
accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally
do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely
explain why in this particular case the suggestion isn't a good one. 
You'd also need to ask the user whether they were prompted to make an
"improvement" by the editor or whether they added it manually (speaking
personally I'd usually draw railway platforms as areas and I can
certainly think of places where I'd draw a linear footpath along as
well).  The emphasis has to be on "politely" - users accepting an
editor's suggestion can't be blamed if they don't know the backstory.

Separately to that I've occasionally mentioned places where JOSM's
suggestions don't seem right and the issue has always been addressed
immediately by the JOSM developers, and I've never seen a response along
the lines of
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649 ,
for example - they are more professional than that.   I therefore can't
suggest, as I would with JOSM, to contact the developers about it directly.

It's perhaps also worth mentioning that I can think of at least one
example where a particular editor was "effectively banned"* due to
serious shortcomings.  In that particular case the bug was to rewrite
all longitude values with a fixed value so that everything touched moved
to a ring around the planet.  Clearly the current issue with iD is not
even close to that level of seriousness, so "direct action" against any
iD edits would be both unwarranted and out of proportion.

Note that this is intended to be an answer to "what can I, as an
individual mapper do about this creeping data problem".  Answers
involving "write a replacement for iD" fail somewhat the short-term
practicality test.

Best Regards,

Andy

(writing in an entirely personal capacity)

* Specifically by looking for all edits by it and reverting them and
taking other action to make users and the developers aware of the problem.



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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

dieterdreist
Am Mo., 27. Mai 2019 um 15:23 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend <[hidden email]>:
  Occasionally there are examples of people
accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally
do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely
explain why in this particular case the suggestion isn't a good one.


As the iD editor is promoted as and often used by newbies (not exclusively), it is no wonder those newbies accept improved suggestions, they do not have the experience and knowledge which would be required to judge about such things, and as they are on the "official page" it looks to them like an "official suggestion".


 
 
You'd also need to ask the user whether they were prompted to make an
"improvement" by the editor or whether they added it manually (speaking
personally I'd usually draw railway platforms as areas and I can
certainly think of places where I'd draw a linear footpath along as
well). 


After looking at some features with both tags in my area, actually only very few were from iD and added recently (yet), the rest (very few in total) had been added years before. I refrained from commenting the new changesets, because it was new users and I didn't want to scare them away:

Complaining about an edit of theirs which was suggested to them by "us", would have either looked as if we were fighting in the inside (left hand vs. right hand), or as if this was a completely chaotic project (unclear how to act), or at least one where as soon as you contribute you would have to justify yourself against some selfappointed block warden (de:Blockwart)

I agree there are cases where a hint can make sense but still requires judgement, but our main front page editor shouldn't suggest automatic tagging improvements which are rejected by the majority of the community, and not even those where a significant number of people rejects them.

Commenting the changesets and creating noise with new users is not the way to go, as polite as you may be able to write. We might excuse to them for reverting this part of their edit, at most ;-)

Cheers,
Martin




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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Phil Wyatt
On 27/05/2019 12:23, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform
>
> This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform

Most of the public_transport=* tags are pure duplicates of existing,
more popular tags. They add nothing to the OSM database except confusion
& errors.

Even the person who conceived the scheme admits it didn't work &
recommending it be dropped.

It's disappointing & frustrating to see the iD editor promote them with
the inaccurate claim of "Some tags change over time and should be updated."

DaveF

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Jo-2
For a very long time I have been trying to adopt the public_transport scheme. After several years of asking it would be rendered on its own without the need for highway=bus_stop tags, I'm giving up on it and came to the conclusion that

highway=bus_stop on nodes next to the highway 

and

highway=platform / railway=platform on dedicated OSM ways, where actual platforms exist

works just fine.

This has been discussed on the public transport list very recently, but as usual, without any resolution one way or the other. Status quo rules.

It is disingenious of iD developers to muddy the waters further though.

Polyglot

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:55 PM Dave F via talk <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 27/05/2019 12:23, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform
>
> This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform

Most of the public_transport=* tags are pure duplicates of existing,
more popular tags. They add nothing to the OSM database except confusion
& errors.

Even the person who conceived the scheme admits it didn't work &
recommending it be dropped.

It's disappointing & frustrating to see the iD editor promote them with
the inaccurate claim of "Some tags change over time and should be updated."

DaveF

_______________________________________________
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: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
Hi,

On 5/27/19 12:58, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> * Automated Edits code of conduct
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)
>> : You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway
>> to platforms. This is an automated edit.

> it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to unconsciously
> perform automated edits could and should be blocked from write access
> to the API and accordingly should not be available on osm.org.

I guess that in cases where it's a widely accepted community decision
instead of "fuck you stinking mailing list pseudo community, I'll do
what I please and anyway my friends all like it", it can be acceptable.
AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" and didn't
hear anyone complain about that.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Christoph Hormann-2
On Monday 27 May 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> >
> > it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to
> > unconsciously perform automated edits could and should be blocked
> > from write access to the API and accordingly should not be
> > available on osm.org.
>
> I guess that in cases where it's a widely accepted community decision
> instead of "fuck you stinking mailing list pseudo community, I'll do
> what I please and anyway my friends all like it", it can be
> acceptable. AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by"
> and didn't hear anyone complain about that.

There is of course a difference between silently dropping obsolete tags
evidently containing no geographic information when editing a feature
anyway and actively modifying features the mapper has not touched in
their fundamental semantics.  As already hinted i know too little about
how iD works to specifically say something about how it fits in here.

I don't think a mechanical edit should be considered acceptable without
discussion because it is obviously beneficial.  If that is the case the
discussion can be short but it still should happen - if for no other
reason than as a safety check to avoid errors.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm


On 27/05/2019 16:26, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" and didn't
> hear anyone complain about that.
That's a bit different. "created-by" was, err,,, created by the
developers of the API/editors. Contributors never added it themselves.

It hasn't really been dropped, just transferred from individual entities
to changeset meta data.

DaveF

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
27 May 2019, 17:51 by [hidden email]:
actively modifying features the mapper has not touched in
their fundamental semantics. As already hinted i know too little about
how iD works to specifically say something about how it fits in here.
By default iD actively suggests to
- change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
- objects selected by user during editing

iD settings can be changed to suggest changes to all downloaded objects
(like JOSM)

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Christoph Hormann-2
On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> By default iD actively suggests to
> - change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
> - objects selected by user during editing

Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to only touch
features modified by the user in the version deployed on osm.org?

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Mateusz Konieczny-3



27 May 2019, 19:38 by [hidden email]:
On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

By default iD actively suggests to
- change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
- objects selected by user during editing

Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to only touch
features modified by the user in the version deployed on osm.org?
So that it would change from

- user selects object, info panel including "upgrade the tags" button appears
- user edits tags/geometry

to

- user selects object, info panel appears
- user edits tags/geometry
- "upgrade the tags" button appears

?

I admit I am not convinced that it addresses the problem.

I think that problem in in specific validator rule that is clearly unwanted by general
community* and it does not matter when and how it appears.

----

* I was adding highway=footway to man_made=pier and public_transport=platform mapped
as lines long before iD introduced this change but I still think that complaints about this rule
should be at least treated seriously

For adding highway=footway on public_transport=platform areas I disagree both with how it
was introduced and with rule itself

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Christoph Hormann-2
On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> I admit I am not convinced that it addresses the problem.
>
> I think that problem in in specific validator rule that is clearly
> unwanted by general community* and it does not matter when and how it
> appears.

Yes, i agree for this particular situation.

The idea was more as an example that it is not necessary to deploy iD in
exactly the configuration it is released with on osm.org.

I also think the label "upgrade the tags" is highly misleading for this
kind of function and the idea of having a button to manually trigger
this feature but not being transparent about what this actually does is
not a very good one.  But indeed this is somwhat sidestepping the core
issue here.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2

Am 27.05.2019 um 12:58 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> ..
> I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has.  
I don't think I claimed to explore every possible sub-variant.
> I in particular see:
>
> * a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly
> what is being released without creating and maintaining a complete
> fork.

A fork is a fork is a fork. As the iD presets are relatively closely
tied to the way they are used in the app, making changes to them in
isolation over a longer period of time is going to be difficult, and
without cooperation from the devs IMHO pointless (and if we had that we
wouldn't be having this discussion). I quote an iD dev "Be aware that
the preset schema can change fairly often to suit the needs of iD."

> * a wide range of options for regulatory measures, not only on
> the 'developer behaviour regulation' front (which i have serious
> trouble with) but also on the technical level by requiring certain
> modularization so things like presets or validation rules can be easily
> replaced or disabled by deployments.

I didn't expand on what such rules could look like, clearly they could
be based on technical requirements, but that wouldn't be less invasive
than putting some behavioural norms in place.

In the end the real issue is that there are no actual consequences for
undesired behaviour, its not the first time this discussion has
happened, and it is just as with kids you let it slip through and the
next time they try a bit more, till you have a completely untenable
situation. Rolling back a couple of months of work implies that those
holding the purse strings (whoever they may be) didn't get what they
were paying for and that, perhaps, might get some attention.

Simon

PS: there seem to be at least a few other cases similar to the issue
mentioned in the title, just a bit less prominent, so the presets
probably should be fully vetted before (re-)deployment.



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

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
Hi,

On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
> As I see it we can choose between

[...]

> - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
> commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
"default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.

It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
even for the community itself.

Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
(because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.

We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.

Bye
Frederik

(*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel
is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right
in pointing out that an apology is in order -
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the
the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to
maintainers" feature.

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"


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

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Mateusz Konieczny-3



28 May 2019, 10:32 by [hidden email]:
Hi,

On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
As I see it we can choose between

[...]
- deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
"default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.

It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
even for the community itself.
I agree, it is perfectly fine to not spend time on researching what community
wants and judging what is the consensus (it is stressful, takes massive amount
of time and in general there is always an unhappy group and it is quite hard to
decide whatever one did it the right way and it n worse in cases when
one also proposed/spearheaded solution that (s)he is now promoting etc etc).

But in the same way it is also perfectly fine to deploy forked iD version
or some other editor as default on the OSM homepage.

(*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel
is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right
in pointing out that an apology is in order -
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the
the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to
maintainers" feature.


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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

john whelan-2
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
I would support a forked version of iD as a default editor on the home page.

I think OpenStreetMap is mature and complex enough now to start using techniques like change management which are used in the IT world to manage change.  It is common practice in corporate IT.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:35 AM Frederik Ramm, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
> As I see it we can choose between

[...]

> - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
> commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
"default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.

It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
even for the community itself.

Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
(because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.

We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.

Bye
Frederik

(*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel
is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right
in pointing out that an apology is in order -
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the
the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to
maintainers" feature.

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

mmd
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Am 28.05.19 um 10:32 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.

That's far too complicated. What you probably want are (mandatory)
feature toggles for every major feature as part of the iD codebase,
allowing the osm.org website repo to selectively enable/disable
controversial features in case this is really needed.

It's not beautiful but might help to establish a bit of a balances of
power without a need to have a dedicated patch team to fix up iD (which
won't work anyway).

--



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

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Jo-2
On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 16:48, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This has been discussed on the public transport list very recently, but as usual, without any resolution one way or the other. Status quo rules.

OT: I haven't forgotten that topic, i'm just a bit too busy right now
(private and on OSM). I'll resume the discussion soon.

Regards

Markus

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

Improving iD on osm.org (WAS: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform)

Michael Reichert-3
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Hi,

Am 28.05.19 um 10:32 schrieb Frederik Ramm:

> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
>
> It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> even for the community itself.
>
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.
>
> We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
> establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
> applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
> patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.
I am not sure if pure patching (a hard fork) will work on the long term.
Adding a blocking step in the release process might work in the
beginning but after some time the members of the distribution team loose
interest. In difference to projects with a volunteer dominated group of
contributors as OSM Carto, the distribution team will not produce a lot.
In contrast, its task is filtering. This can be torpedoed by the
maintainers of the parent project by code changes requiring a tedious
and boring application of the patches and the user base will ask what
the benefit of the distribution team will be and why we need such a
group at all. I have been active in WeeklyOSM for almost five years now.
I have seen people joining and becoming inactive after some time. I have
observed myself becoming more or less involved (varies a bit over time).
It needs discipline and a large team to get an issue almost every week.

I am pretty sure that there is another way to enable distributors of iD
to build the iD they want. iD could offer a couple of switches in a
central source file to disable or enable certain, controversial or not
always necessary features. (This idea is inspired by build flags for C
programmes but different) This concept might still need the application
of patches to the central file but patching a single file which is
basically a list of variable assignments appears easy to me.

These build flags enable the maintainers to stay to their personal views
on disputed matters but enables local communities more easily to host
their local iD and therefore foresters diversity. If the maintainers add
another feature which is not accepted for www.openstreetmap.org, the
distribution team can still fall back on patching with all its consequences.

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: Improving iD on osm.org (WAS: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform)

john whelan-2
Do we need the editor on the web page to be the latest and greatest?

I think a basic editor that allows you to add lines ie highways etc. POIs with tags should meet 95% of a casual mapper's needs if not more.

A trimmed down stable version of iD should meet these requirements.

I think the first task is to determine what the requirements are for casual mapping from the web page.  My thoughts are it is there as an introductory tool and as such a complex editor may well overwhelm a new mapper.

There are other tools available for more complex mapping.

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 5:53 PM Michael Reichert, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Am 28.05.19 um 10:32 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
>
> It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> even for the community itself.
>
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.
>
> We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
> establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
> applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
> patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.

I am not sure if pure patching (a hard fork) will work on the long term.
Adding a blocking step in the release process might work in the
beginning but after some time the members of the distribution team loose
interest. In difference to projects with a volunteer dominated group of
contributors as OSM Carto, the distribution team will not produce a lot.
In contrast, its task is filtering. This can be torpedoed by the
maintainers of the parent project by code changes requiring a tedious
and boring application of the patches and the user base will ask what
the benefit of the distribution team will be and why we need such a
group at all. I have been active in WeeklyOSM for almost five years now.
I have seen people joining and becoming inactive after some time. I have
observed myself becoming more or less involved (varies a bit over time).
It needs discipline and a large team to get an issue almost every week.

I am pretty sure that there is another way to enable distributors of iD
to build the iD they want. iD could offer a couple of switches in a
central source file to disable or enable certain, controversial or not
always necessary features. (This idea is inspired by build flags for C
programmes but different) This concept might still need the application
of patches to the central file but patching a single file which is
basically a list of variable assignments appears easy to me.

These build flags enable the maintainers to stay to their personal views
on disputed matters but enables local communities more easily to host
their local iD and therefore foresters diversity. If the maintainers add
another feature which is not accepted for www.openstreetmap.org, the
distribution team can still fall back on patching with all its consequences.

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: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 5/28/19 10:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community.

(with my OSMF board hat on)

I would like to make it clear that nothing of what I or any other OSMF
board member has said in this thread or any other thread concerning the
iD editor is an expression of a board opinion.

The OSMF board only very briefly discussed the issue at the F2F in
Brussels. We are looking into this but we are not making a public
statement at this point.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"


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

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
12