iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
96 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: solving iD conflict

marc marc
Hello,

Le 23.05.19 à 21:58, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> My experience with this mailing list:

the current situation have several issues, indeed
but I think you should confuse this mailing with somewhere else,
because I don't recognize the majority of abstract examples
you're talking about.

> offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received
> on this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent  
> way of combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing
> a carefully-vetted import

an example among many others, can you provide the link to the archive
of this problematic discussion?

technology is one thing, it's not everything.
you can read the mailing wuth a forum interface (see nabble),
you can participate without a password, there are moderators, etc
moving people from one tools to another rarely solves human problems.
the app we are talking about recently does not use a mailing list
and yet same problems you describe are present there.

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Michael Reichert-3
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
Hi Nick,

Am 23.05.19 um 21:58 schrieb Nick Bolten:

> # My experience with this mailing list:
> - Quick to exasperate.
> - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
> - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
> - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens of
> thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
> - The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible
> opinions from those that do respond.
> - Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions shared
> here are in any way representative of the community, given that so few
> discover + participate in it?
> - Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters and/or
> specialized search queries.
> - Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add data
> to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of
> collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).
>
> Focusing on the idea of being an "arbiter", does that sound like a good way
> to figure out which tags are good/acceptable?
>
> When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were
> offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on this
> mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of combining
> existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a carefully-vetted import.
> The import was so carefully-vetted that we later realized it wasn't even
> really an import, but this didn't stop there being several insulting
> accusations from several long-term OSMers on these lists. Those students
> were motivated by helping other people and spent literal months attempting
> to gather enough information from underspecified tagging standards and
> would have been put off the community entirely if it weren't for the
> project's momentum and much more productive and friendly interactions with
> local OSMers. I think it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even
> know that there is a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.
Your criticism might have some true points and I am happy that is a bit
more elaborated than a simple "mailing lists are bad and a toxic space".
Don't you think that an accusation without a proof (link to mailing list
archive where I can re-read the discussion that happened at that time)
makes your claims more substantial?

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)


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

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten

23 May 2019, 21:58 by [hidden email]:
in-person
Well, it is hard to beat in-person contact.
, personal emails, slack, etc.
My experience with both and mailing lists is very similar as far as quality of conversation goes.

For:
- The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens of thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
- The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible opinions from those that do respond.
- Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions shared here are in any way representative of the community, given that so few discover + participate in it?
- Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters and/or specialized search queries.
- Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add data to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).
I see no difference between slack, personal emails and mailing list for this points.

Though personal emails are even worse in category "to discover" and
in managing separate conversations.

Though I am confused what you mean by "Zero real synchronization with OSM editors"
Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/
What is wrong with a current forum?

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
These are some valid points, and I also have some input to that, but are you sure you want to discuss this on the tagging ML? The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-)

Tobias

On 23/05/2019 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:

>> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message).
>
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could not be more stark:
>
> # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
> - Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to donate their time to help others via the map.
> - Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of view and usually come around to a compromise.
> - There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth.
> - Objections are qualified and polite.
> - 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea.
>
> # My experience with this mailing list:
> - Quick to exasperate.
> - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
> - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
> - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens of thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
> - The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible opinions from those that do respond.
> - Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions shared here are in any way representative of the community, given that so few discover + participate in it?
> - Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters and/or specialized search queries.
> - Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add data to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).
>
> Focusing on the idea of being an "arbiter", does that sound like a good way to figure out which tags are good/acceptable?
>
> When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a carefully-vetted import. The import was so carefully-vetted that we later realized it wasn't even really an import, but this didn't stop there being several insulting accusations from several long-term OSMers on these lists. Those students were motivated by helping other people and spent literal months attempting to gather enough information from underspecified tagging standards and would have been put off the community entirely if it weren't for the project's momentum and much more productive and friendly interactions with local OSMers. I think it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even know that there is a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.
>
> To boot, there are technical problems solved by virtually every other messaging system:
> - Difficult to discover.
> - Virtually impossible for new users to join recent discussions - they need to have subscribed to the list first.
> - Discovering old discussions is difficult, requires some nerdy prowess.
> - Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email. No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw this. Completely unacceptable.
>
> Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual moderators and code of conduct. The current mode of communication is systematically flawed.
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     23 May 2019, 18:32 by [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>:
>
>         reverse this development.
>
>     Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it
>     would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid
>     what I realized after sending the message).
>
>         I had to rewrite this last paragraph several times, but, well, I hope this does not come across the wrong way...
>         it can certainly not continue like this, so ... why not interview him, honestly and with open outcome, how should the collaboration and communication in OSM happen in the future from his point of view? Would he rather feel relieved or rather feel betrayed if the gatekeeping (~deployment) is done by other people? Does he really feel alienated (because I assumed it) from the community and if yes, why? And most importantly, what would it take to reverse this?
>
>     +1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that,
>     and not already involved in a poor way
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. 

is not a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop as? 

If not, then what is it?

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Jo-2
Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter, not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the bus halts, I'd say platform, but this is just a sidewalk.
That we map such a node with public_transport=platform/bus=yes doesn't make it a platform. That's just convention since the PT v2 scheme appeared.

Polyglot

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:20 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. 

is not a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop as? 

If not, then what is it?

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Nick Bolten
That bus stop has essentially the same surface conditions as the picture for `highway=platform`. Who wants to update the wiki?

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:46 PM Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter, not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the bus halts, I'd say platform, but this is just a sidewalk.
That we map such a node with public_transport=platform/bus=yes doesn't make it a platform. That's just convention since the PT v2 scheme appeared.

Polyglot

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:20 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. 

is not a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop as? 

If not, then what is it?

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Michael Reichert-3
> Don't you think that an accusation without a proof (link to mailing list archive where I can re-read the discussion that happened at that time)
makes your claims more substantial?

Yes, it would substantiate the claim. It would also increase tensions, so I'm not going to dive into that unless it's absolutely necessary.

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 2:43 PM Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Nick,

Am 23.05.19 um 21:58 schrieb Nick Bolten:
> # My experience with this mailing list:
> - Quick to exasperate.
> - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
> - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
> - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens of
> thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
> - The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible
> opinions from those that do respond.
> - Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions shared
> here are in any way representative of the community, given that so few
> discover + participate in it?
> - Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters and/or
> specialized search queries.
> - Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add data
> to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of
> collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).
>
> Focusing on the idea of being an "arbiter", does that sound like a good way
> to figure out which tags are good/acceptable?
>
> When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were
> offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on this
> mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of combining
> existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a carefully-vetted import.
> The import was so carefully-vetted that we later realized it wasn't even
> really an import, but this didn't stop there being several insulting
> accusations from several long-term OSMers on these lists. Those students
> were motivated by helping other people and spent literal months attempting
> to gather enough information from underspecified tagging standards and
> would have been put off the community entirely if it weren't for the
> project's momentum and much more productive and friendly interactions with
> local OSMers. I think it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even
> know that there is a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.

Your criticism might have some true points and I am happy that is a bit
more elaborated than a simple "mailing lists are bad and a toxic space".
Don't you think that an accusation without a proof (link to mailing list
archive where I can re-read the discussion that happened at that time)
makes your claims more substantial?

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)

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

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
> The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-)

So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and sometimes on Github issues). I've listed some reasons as to why someone might not listen to this mailing list. Reasons that I've heard echoed many times in various venues...

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:05 PM Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
These are some valid points, and I also have some input to that, but are you sure you want to discuss this on the tagging ML? The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-)

Tobias

On 23/05/2019 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
>> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message).
>
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could not be more stark:
>
> # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
> - Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to donate their time to help others via the map.
> - Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of view and usually come around to a compromise.
> - There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth.
> - Objections are qualified and polite.
> - 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea.
>
> # My experience with this mailing list:
> - Quick to exasperate.
> - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
> - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
> - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens of thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
> - The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible opinions from those that do respond.
> - Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions shared here are in any way representative of the community, given that so few discover + participate in it?
> - Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters and/or specialized search queries.
> - Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add data to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).
>
> Focusing on the idea of being an "arbiter", does that sound like a good way to figure out which tags are good/acceptable?
>
> When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a carefully-vetted import. The import was so carefully-vetted that we later realized it wasn't even really an import, but this didn't stop there being several insulting accusations from several long-term OSMers on these lists. Those students were motivated by helping other people and spent literal months attempting to gather enough information from underspecified tagging standards and would have been put off the community entirely if it weren't for the project's momentum and much more productive and friendly interactions with local OSMers. I think it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even know that there is a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.
>
> To boot, there are technical problems solved by virtually every other messaging system:
> - Difficult to discover.
> - Virtually impossible for new users to join recent discussions - they need to have subscribed to the list first.
> - Discovering old discussions is difficult, requires some nerdy prowess.
> - Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email. No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw this. Completely unacceptable.
>
> Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual moderators and code of conduct. The current mode of communication is systematically flawed.
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     23 May 2019, 18:32 by [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>:
>
>         reverse this development.
>
>     Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it
>     would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid
>     what I realized after sending the message).
>
>         I had to rewrite this last paragraph several times, but, well, I hope this does not come across the wrong way...
>         it can certainly not continue like this, so ... why not interview him, honestly and with open outcome, how should the collaboration and communication in OSM happen in the future from his point of view? Would he rather feel relieved or rather feel betrayed if the gatekeeping (~deployment) is done by other people? Does he really feel alienated (because I assumed it) from the community and if yes, why? And most importantly, what would it take to reverse this?
>
>     +1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that,
>     and not already involved in a poor way
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

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

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Snusmumriken
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:18 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of
> > a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement.  
> >
>
> Sorry, but do you mean that this:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0841684,153.4150288,3a,75y,46.69h,72.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hTF-eOoQp3yhcCIfyJelw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> is not a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop
> as?
>
> If not, then what is it?

I see a hedge, a bench, a sidewalk and a bus stop. But no platform.


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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

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

On 5/23/19 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of
> these mailing lists.

It might; that doesn't invalidate points made on these mailing lists though!

> # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
> - Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to
> donate their time to help others via the map.
> - Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of
> view and usually come around to a compromise.
> - There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth.
> - Objections are qualified and polite.
> - 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea.

Every person on this mailing list participates in many of these kinds of
discussions, in addition to being on the mailing list (just in case you
were thinking there were two different kinds of people, the friendly
people and the mailing list people; this is not the case).

> When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were
> offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on
> this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of
> combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a
> carefully-vetted import.

I think you should attempt to apply a little of that "acknowledging the
other point of view" that you lauded above to such situations. Every day
brings new broken imports to OpenStreetMap. All of them are done with
the best intentions. Very many of them are done by people with little
prior experience. Therefore, when a group of students pops up and
suggests to do an import, this already sets some alarm bells ringing
(carefully vetted or not). Your project is to be applauded to even come
here - as you rightly say, the lists are not necessarily easy to
discover and a large percentage of problematic imports have never been
discussed with anyone before they are attempted.

Everyone on this mailing list has likely seen many buggy imports.
Imagine being at a party and someone steps on your shoe. They say sorry,
you say no problem. Five minutes later another person steps on your
shoe. Again, a friendly sorry, a friendly no problem. By the time the
10th person steps on your shoe you might shout out "WHAT THE FUCK IS
WRONG WITH THIS PARTY" even if that person is totally innocent. It's not
right, it's not polite, but it is somewhat understandable.

> I think
> it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even know that there is
> a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.

That is often repeated and I guess most people can confirm that people
act differently in person than on mailing lists. However, many mailing
lists in OSM are vibrant meeting places for many more than 8 community
members, and spreading negative opinions about mailing lists reinforces
problems instead of solving them - if you go around telling everyone
what a snake pit "the mailing lists" are then people will either not
join them, or join them just waiting to see their expectations confirmed.

In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a
controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to
be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak
with one voice. But this also gives us some resilience; there's no one
"tag central command" that someone could take over and dictate what we
are to do.

> - Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email.
> No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw
> this. Completely unacceptable.

Now you're going off on a tangent. Passwords are not required at all to
use the mailing list. Of course, email in general is not a secure medium
since you can easily impersonate others. Then again, if we judge the
merit of contributions by their content and not by who wrote them,
impersonating someone doesn't even give you much of an advantage.

> Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real
> forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging
> discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or
> something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual
> moderators and code of conduct.

The current forum system works and has moderators and etiquette
guidelines (this depends on each sub-forum, they are not global).
Discoverability isn't much better than mailing lists IMHO. In my country
(Germany), OSMers are neatly split between forum and mailing list, most
using just one or just the other, some using both. Nothing wrong with
that IMHO; smaller groups form better bonds.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Kevin Kenny-3
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:39 PM Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a
> controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to
> be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak
> with one voice. But this also gives us some resilience; there's no one
> "tag central command" that someone could take over and dictate what we
> are to do.

I think at the root of the complaints in this thread is the idea -
justified or not - that the maintainers of iD are attempting to
arrogate that role unto themselves.

To the extent that they are, it is probably because the discussion
forums on tagging - at least, this list - are too cacophonous to
inform their decisions about what tags to present in iD.  Where
consensus fails here - as, in my experience, it almost always does for
any question that isn't answerable by tagging that was well
established years before I got here - the iD developers are really
faced with the decision: implement some arbitrary choice that makes
sense to them, or do nothing about helping iD users to map the feature
in question.

That matches my experience with mapping. On the few occasions that
I've asked a tagging question in here, any useful answers are lost in
a din of conflicting opinions. That's fine if the sole purpose of the
mailing list is to explore the tagging strategy - it is by talking
these things to death, over and over, that consensus is built -
painfully slowly. In the meantime, I run the opinions through the
mental filters of "what do they have in common" and "what from among
the rest makes sense to *me*?" and map my feature accordingly. I'd
imagine that the iD team is forced to employ a similar process.

So far I've gotten away with it. If anyone complains, I can retag. If
anyone reverts, I can leave the feature unmapped. Obviously, though,
my tagging affects only the relatively small fraction of OSM's
features that I map, while iD's tagging has a much bigger impact.
That's why nobody takes me to task for rogue tagging, while iD appears
constantly to be under fire.

I'm not sure it's fixable. We need both the passionate argument about
the right way to do things, and someone who can decide for each tool
what that tool will consider to be the best current practice. Those
who get angry at not getting their way will get angry. If the mailing
list is to serve as a debating forum for what tagging practice ought
to be in the medium or far future - a function that is needed - it
will not be very effective at informing anyone of best
_current_practice. They're slightly different jobs, and we're not very
good at separating them. Even Overpass and taginfo queries seem to be
more effective at determining whether a tag is accepted in current
practice, and of course we all know that has to be taken with a grain
of salt.

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
> Every person on this mailing list participates in many of these kinds of discussions (...)

I have never seen one where there was someone suggesting a change to a tag and at least some of those negative bullet points didn't apply.

> I think you should attempt to apply a little of that "acknowledging the other point of view" (...)

I understand becoming frustrated with repetition and bad data. That frustration should be channeled into fixing the UX problem that leads to it, such as discoverability of import documents. I don't understand the habit of lashing out at new members and/or new ideas, given the goal of making a community-focused project.

> That is often repeated and I guess most people can confirm that people act differently in person than on mailing lists.

I've also communicated via direct emails and via slack. This is the only place where it gets toxic almost immediately.

> if you go around telling everyone what a snake pit "the mailing lists" are then people will either not join them, or join them just waiting to see their expectations confirmed.

I've personally talked to more people who avoid the mailing lists, particularly this one, than those who generally respond here. The sentiment is popular and it's not great for community building.

> In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to
be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak with one voice.

This is how it should theoretically work. I don't think it's how it actually works. It's driven by editing software and targeted mapping efforts, not mailing list discussions of which most mappers are unaware.

But I don't mind discussing things over and over - that wasn't one of the negatives list.

> Now you're going off on a tangent. Passwords are not required at all to use the mailing list.

Serious technical issues with the mailing list isn't a tangent, the topic is mailing list vs. an editor's decisions. It undermines the credibility of this mailing list when its use involves terrible security practices. Registering for the mailing list, which is required for real-time participation, sends passwords in plain text. This is a massive security issue and the entire process feels unprofessional and dodgy. When I've recommended subscribing to others, I always remind them of this problem.

> The current forum system works and has moderators and etiquette guidelines (this depends on each sub-forum, they are not global). Discoverability isn't much better than mailing lists IMHO.

Discoverability is very bad all over the place for OSM - there is a desperate need for a "get involved" link on the landing page that orients the community.

But discoverability is far better for the forums than here, as they are crawled by search engines. Whenever I see someone suggest reviewing a discussion from 9 months ago, I'm reminded of Douglas Adams: "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.'"

Anywho, I think the length of my replies have distracted from my point: what is the goal of this mailing list and how do these threads serve it, given these behaviors? Surely there is a better way to collaborate.

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:39 PM Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

On 5/23/19 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of
> these mailing lists.

It might; that doesn't invalidate points made on these mailing lists though!

> # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
> - Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to
> donate their time to help others via the map.
> - Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of
> view and usually come around to a compromise.
> - There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth.
> - Objections are qualified and polite.
> - 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea.

Every person on this mailing list participates in many of these kinds of
discussions, in addition to being on the mailing list (just in case you
were thinking there were two different kinds of people, the friendly
people and the mailing list people; this is not the case).

> When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were
> offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on
> this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of
> combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a
> carefully-vetted import.

I think you should attempt to apply a little of that "acknowledging the
other point of view" that you lauded above to such situations. Every day
brings new broken imports to OpenStreetMap. All of them are done with
the best intentions. Very many of them are done by people with little
prior experience. Therefore, when a group of students pops up and
suggests to do an import, this already sets some alarm bells ringing
(carefully vetted or not). Your project is to be applauded to even come
here - as you rightly say, the lists are not necessarily easy to
discover and a large percentage of problematic imports have never been
discussed with anyone before they are attempted.

Everyone on this mailing list has likely seen many buggy imports.
Imagine being at a party and someone steps on your shoe. They say sorry,
you say no problem. Five minutes later another person steps on your
shoe. Again, a friendly sorry, a friendly no problem. By the time the
10th person steps on your shoe you might shout out "WHAT THE FUCK IS
WRONG WITH THIS PARTY" even if that person is totally innocent. It's not
right, it's not polite, but it is somewhat understandable.

> I think
> it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even know that there is
> a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.

That is often repeated and I guess most people can confirm that people
act differently in person than on mailing lists. However, many mailing
lists in OSM are vibrant meeting places for many more than 8 community
members, and spreading negative opinions about mailing lists reinforces
problems instead of solving them - if you go around telling everyone
what a snake pit "the mailing lists" are then people will either not
join them, or join them just waiting to see their expectations confirmed.

In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a
controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to
be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak
with one voice. But this also gives us some resilience; there's no one
"tag central command" that someone could take over and dictate what we
are to do.

> - Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email.
> No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw
> this. Completely unacceptable.

Now you're going off on a tangent. Passwords are not required at all to
use the mailing list. Of course, email in general is not a secure medium
since you can easily impersonate others. Then again, if we judge the
merit of contributions by their content and not by who wrote them,
impersonating someone doesn't even give you much of an advantage.

> Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real
> forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging
> discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or
> something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual
> moderators and code of conduct.

The current forum system works and has moderators and etiquette
guidelines (this depends on each sub-forum, they are not global).
Discoverability isn't much better than mailing lists IMHO. In my country
(Germany), OSMers are neatly split between forum and mailing list, most
using just one or just the other, some using both. Nothing wrong with
that IMHO; smaller groups form better bonds.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten


Am 24.05.2019 um 00:59 schrieb Nick Bolten:
> The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-)

So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and sometimes on Github issues). I've listed some reasons as to why someone might not listen to this mailing list. Reasons that I've heard echoed many times in various venues...

I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get their way" as in: there was a substantial body of opinions that disagreed with what ever they were proposing).

If you are addressing a very diverse group, disagreement is the name of the game. People that can't with live that will tend to gyrate towards more controlled and selective environments, particularly if they can control the discourse as they can do for example on a github repo, or a slack channel. Not to mention that on any of the larger more diverse forums, that is any of the international, and topical mailing lists, forums, IRC channels, you will have a large selection of different discussion cultures, and will experience everything from people directly calling a spade a spade, to criticism being packaged in multiple layers of cotton wool.

Simon

PS: I think you owe us proof of this rather extraordinary claim > - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:05 PM Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
These are some valid points, and I also have some input to that, but are you sure you want to discuss this on the tagging ML? The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-)

Tobias

On 23/05/2019 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
>> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message).
>
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could not be more stark:
>
> # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
> - Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to donate their time to help others via the map.
> - Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of view and usually come around to a compromise.
> - There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth.
> - Objections are qualified and polite.
> - 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea.
>
> # My experience with this mailing list:
> - Quick to exasperate.
> - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
> - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
> - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens of thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
> - The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible opinions from those that do respond.
> - Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions shared here are in any way representative of the community, given that so few discover + participate in it?
> - Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters and/or specialized search queries.
> - Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add data to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).
>
> Focusing on the idea of being an "arbiter", does that sound like a good way to figure out which tags are good/acceptable?
>
> When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a carefully-vetted import. The import was so carefully-vetted that we later realized it wasn't even really an import, but this didn't stop there being several insulting accusations from several long-term OSMers on these lists. Those students were motivated by helping other people and spent literal months attempting to gather enough information from underspecified tagging standards and would have been put off the community entirely if it weren't for the project's momentum and much more productive and friendly interactions with local OSMers. I think it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even know that there is a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.
>
> To boot, there are technical problems solved by virtually every other messaging system:
> - Difficult to discover.
> - Virtually impossible for new users to join recent discussions - they need to have subscribed to the list first.
> - Discovering old discussions is difficult, requires some nerdy prowess.
> - Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email. No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw this. Completely unacceptable.
>
> Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual moderators and code of conduct. The current mode of communication is systematically flawed.
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     23 May 2019, 18:32 by [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>:
>
>         reverse this development.
>
>     Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it
>     would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid
>     what I realized after sending the message).
>
>         I had to rewrite this last paragraph several times, but, well, I hope this does not come across the wrong way...
>         it can certainly not continue like this, so ... why not interview him, honestly and with open outcome, how should the collaboration and communication in OSM happen in the future from his point of view? Would he rather feel relieved or rather feel betrayed if the gatekeeping (~deployment) is done by other people? Does he really feel alienated (because I assumed it) from the community and if yes, why? And most importantly, what would it take to reverse this?
>
>     +1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that,
>     and not already involved in a poor way
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

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

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

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten


Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 01:00 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten <[hidden email]>:
So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and sometimes on Github issues).


iD is not a general topic here, but with the tendency of introducing new tags via presets, sometimes even where there are established alternative tags, and the developer deciding on his own even with many different people suggesting the same changes in the Github issue tracker, and with the developer dismissing any significance for the community documentation (wiki and other), it is natural that from time to time it becomes a topic here.
With contributors being mostly volunteers, it will often take some time until things are changed, until it itches sufficiently to start scratching. I guess sooner or later, the iD presets will become a separate project, where a group of people will have a say, and not just one (or now 2) people, and then these discussions will likely go away, but again, it is not something that takes up considerably much space here.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> > In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project
> > with a controlled decision-making process. This means that many
> > things have to be discussed over and over, and the community
> > generally doesn't speak with one voice. But this also gives us some
> > resilience; there's no one "tag central command" that someone could
> > take over and dictate what we are to do.
>
> I think at the root of the complaints in this thread is the idea -
> justified or not - that the maintainers of iD are attempting to
> arrogate that role unto themselves.

Note there is not really much in terms of 'justified or not' - we have a
clear statement here:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649

that without any significant amount of reading between the lines
communicates dividing the OSM community into a relevant and irrelevant
part by an authoritive decision that does not have to justify itself
against anyone.

> To the extent that they are, it is probably because the discussion
> forums on tagging - at least, this list - are too cacophonous to
> inform their decisions about what tags to present in iD.  Where
> consensus fails here - as, in my experience, it almost always does
> for any question that isn't answerable by tagging that was well
> established years before I got here - the iD developers are really
> faced with the decision: implement some arbitrary choice that makes
> sense to them, or do nothing about helping iD users to map the
> feature in question.

The fact that decisions are made is not the problem here.  If you are in
a decision making position in any kind of project within a diverse
community like OSM you are inevitably making decisions in situations
where there are varying opinions.  This basic fact is not what people
have issues with in case of iD presets and validation (at least not
more in this case than in any other).  

The problem is if as you describe it people "implement some arbitrary
choice that makes sense to them" and this "makes sense to them" is not
based on a qualified in depth look at the whole situation and all its
angles but from a narrow filter bubble where indeed (as linked to
above) things might appear clear and simple while with consideration of
the broader reality they are not.

I have come to the conclusion that it is quite definitely not bad
intentions that lead to this approach but simply being overwhelmed by
the complexity of the situation.  The iD developers are foremost
software developers.  They are certainly highly qualified in software
development and several people here have expressed appreciation for
their work in this field (and i agree with that).  But that does not
provide the background and experience in OSM mapping and global
geography to make qualified decisions on tagging questions.  Trying to
solve this by "dumbing down" questions and ignoring perspectives on
them you don't understand is not a solution.

One of the key qualifications for any decision making position is IMO
the ability to recognize when you lack the background to make a
qualified decision and the ability and willingness in those fields to
yield decision making to others who are more qualified.

This is evidently something that is becoming more and more important as
OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly difficult for a
single person to be knowledgable about every aspect of it.


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

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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten

Hola Nick,

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:17PM -0700, Nick Bolten wrote:
> So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to
> gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and

You can broaden that up - All tools around OSM. Same applies hier to all
editors and at least QA tools. As soon as you point your finger to
something "This is broken - please fix" you interpret OSM data which
is likely just a personal or partial view.

I am running a lot of QA stuff and a lot of that is only my personal
opinion and i am getting beaten with a stick about those things aswell.

The more people use your tools the broader your consensus must be in
interpreting data.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: solving iD conflict

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
On 5/24/19 6:04 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> This is evidently something that is becoming more and more important as
> OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly difficult for a
> single person to be knowledgable about every aspect of it.

In the din of voices here, how does one assess who is most qualified to
make such decisions? I've asked questions here many times. I never have
received useful answers, because there is no consensus about anything
that I've asked about. In some cases the discussion has affected my
decision, but in those cases the ultimate decision was 'go and map
something else, because trying to map this feature at all is a political
nightmare.' The result is that the feature goes unmapped, which is no
great loss - arguably no loss at all since I simply spend the time on
mapping something else. I continue listening carefully to this mailing
list, toping to glean useful information from it. IT SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENS.

The stakes are clearly higher when the decision must be made for a
common tool that the broader community uses, but why believe that the
mailing list will be any more useful in that context? This mailing list
is simply not a useful source of information about current tagging
practice - it is many opinions about what should be, all presenting
themselves as if they're authoritative about what actually is. That's
fine, because we need to hash out what will be good practice moving
forward, but the list simply cannot serve the two purposes, because
distinguishing them goes against human nature.

As Frederik points out, we have no central authority. Are you arguing
that we must constitute one? Otherwise, you can simply argue that any
decision with which you disagree personally is the result of failing to
consult a 'sufficiently competent' authority. That will not silence the
din. Rather, it will make it personal - with people waving about their
university degrees; academic papers; past or present positions with GIS
companies, government mapping agencies, or universities; and other
credentials. The flawed _argumentum ad populum_ that we get from
techniques such as consulting taginfo or Overpass will be replaced with
an even worse _argumentum ad verecundiam._

In the absence of a central authority, tools such as taginfo are
actually the most reliable source. Yes, it's _argumentum ad populum_,
but truly, what else is there?

Beware of elevating, 'I disagree with this decision,' to, 'the people
who made this decision were irresponsible. If they had consulted a
competent authority, they would not have made it.' In this forum, it
risks being interpreted as an arrogant belief that you are the only
truly competent authority, unless you accompany it with a proposal for
constituting a governing body.

Also, be wary of micromanaging volunteer developers. Eventually, they
all respond with, 'People pay me to do that.'


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

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by SimonPoole

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 09:56, Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get their way" as in: there was a substantial body of opinions that disagreed with what ever they were proposing).


And some of those people will then go on to say that a particular forum [where nobody agreed with
them, because everybody else is marching out of step] needs to be replaced with a different type
of forum.  A moderated forum.  It is never explicitly stated, but may be inferred, that they'd like
those moderators to be people who agree with them, or for they, themselves, to actually be
the moderators.

For bonus points, they may state (without providing names or evidence) that people on the
forum accuse them of acting in bad faith.  Which may be true, even though I don't recall
seeing that particular accusation on this list while I've been here.  Or it may be subtly
poisoning the well: those who disagree with me are obviously acting in bad faith because they
accuse me of acting in bad faith [but no evidence of such accusations is provided].

--
Paul


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

Re: solving iD conflict

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3



24 May 2019, 13:32 by [hidden email]:
I continue listening carefully to this mailing list, toping to glean useful information from it. IT SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENS.
Well, for me for example
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043355.html
was useful (if I would spend more time I would found something  more recent, but this was what
I remembered)

It was both positive and allowed me to further improve documentation page at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:conscriptionnumber
As Frederik points out, we have no central authority. Are you arguing that we must constitute one?
No, mailing list is a good place for sanity check (if noone argues against something then it is
really well established or simply noone cares about it) like for example I used it at

If almost entire mailing list describes something as a poor idea then it is very likely to actually
be a poor idea.

Mailing list is also a good place to get some ideas (better or worse).

But note that iD also should not treat itself as central authority overriding established practices,
mailing list, OSM Wiki, popular tagging schemes, other software etc

Obviously, any of this things may be (and often is) wrong but simply ignoring everybody
who disagrees rarely ends well.
In the absence of a central authority, tools such as taginfo are actually the most reliable source. Yes, it's _argumentum ad populum_, but truly, what else is there?
taginfo is useful tool but only one of many. Examples of some of taginfo limitations:

- it simple tag count, meaning is not always clear (taginfo has some descriptions,
but it is pulled from OSM Wiki). Just values at
will not meaning of this tag clear, one needs documentation to make it clear

- vulnerable to mass edits/imports, there were cases of people running undiscussed mass
edits and then immediately presenting tag popularity as reason to do something

- no history - it is often useful to see discussion/known limitations/reason why tag exists
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/is_in has no way to explain why this tag was used,
what is current opinion about it, is usage increasing etc

- complex syntax - good luck with making opening hours parser using solely
It may be possible but documentation is necessary to make it productive

- taginfo is not a community - you can't ask taginfo about opinions on a new tag scheme
taginfo is not a replacement for mailing list, it is useful for completely different purposes

- poor information how tags relates to other tags (there are small bits of that but
it is very limited)



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12345