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

Christoph Hormann-2
On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> 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?

Through arguments and reasoning and through critical evaluation of
opinions and decisions.

You should not assume just because people articulate all kinds of
strange views and opinions on these channels that are evidently flawed
that the discourse on a whole is pointless.

If you engage in discussions in the OSM community for a longer time you
will learn which people on what subjects tend to have views and ideas
that in the long term hold up to critical assessment and usually turn
out to be correct.  Likewise you also learn which people might have an
interesting perspective on things but frequently draw the wrong
conclusions.  This helps a lot - but is of course no replacement for
critical evaluation of ideas on a case-by-case bases.  Everyone can
make errors in judgement - even experts in their respective fields.

Also allowing the articulation of highly opinionated and unqualified
ideas is a necesssity in a community that wants to be open and be able
to develop and adjust the a changing environment.  Because many
innnovative ideas start as something that is universally considered to
be a bad idea (or even offensive or toxic as some like to call it).

> 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.

I think you got the wrong impression here that i advocate the creation
of formal authorities based on some codified system of qualifications.

In my opinion the only practical way to effectively select qualified
people to making decisions is through competition - in arguments and
reasoning in the process leading up to the decisions and between
different decisions and those making them afterwards.  What i criticize
in case of iD presets and validations is not primarily that iD
developers make decisions the way they do (which i do but which i also
consider to be their legitimate decision) but that the OSMF endorses
this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it
an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and
validation.  That adds on top of the pre-existing advantage of being
financially backed in a significant way (by paying developers) by
multiple (and in parts still anonymous) financiers.

--
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

Mateusz Konieczny-3
24 May 2019, 14:48 by [hidden email]:
OSMF endorses
this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it
an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and
validation.
Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be considered as better than iD
that was refused without a good reason? There is Potlatch 2, but relying on Flash
immediately makes it worse (even assuming that interface and design is better than in iD).

Or is there some explicit or implicit announcement that iD will be kept as default even in case
of something better (like forked iD with some changes to presets and validation rules)?

If not, I would not describe it as unfair.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:49 AM Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You should not assume just because people articulate all kinds of
> strange views and opinions on these channels that are evidently flawed
> that the discourse on a whole is pointless.

I'm not asserting that it is pointless - I'm still here, after all!

I'm asserting that it provides little useful information about
_current_ practice, since it chiefly devotes its attention to _future_
practice: it discusses an ideal world, rather than the real world that
we inhabit.

Case in point: When I was a novice mapper, too uninformed to know what
the result would be, I made the mistake of asking here how to map a
2-way STOP sign. I'd seen 'direction="' on the Wiki, seen on the talk
page that it had been controversial, and saw none near me in Overpass.

I heard a cacophony of replies. One person insisted that a node cannot
have a direction=* and that the only way to model such a thing would
be to add a new type of relation that none of the tools support.
Another person said that the only way to model it would be to place a
node off the way to model the sign itself, indicate which way the node
faced, and somehow expect routers and navigation software to deal with
it. The discussion wandered off into the weeds of how to improve the
data model to encompass various sorts of traffic restriction that were
far beyond the scope of my question, for instance a STOP sign that
applies only to certain traffic lanes or a particular turn direction.

The one useful thing that came of it was that one person sent me a
reply - off the list, no less - that I needed to cast my net a bit
farther in looking for direction=*. I learnt that:

- highway=stop direction=* is well accepted, with over 100000
instances in North America alone.
- JOSM, at least, warns when splitting a highway at a highway=stop or
highway=give_way, and when you reverse the direction of a way
containing such a node, offers to reverse the node as well.
- OSMand, at least, respects the direction of highway=stop in its
spoken and on-screen warnings of approaching hazards.

In short, what I had considered but was doubtful of on initial inquiry
was widely used, well supported by at least some of the tools,
documented on the WIki, and apparently agreed-to by a fairly broad
community, pretty much everywhere but here.

That's human nature too, really. Those who agree with the consensus
have little incentive to speak up, and those who disagree will be
highly motivated to seize the opportunity to argue for their ideas.
Nevertheless, that's why a forum that supports the passionate advocacy
of new ideas will be a poor place to get information about the current
practice.

> What i criticize
> in case of iD presets and validations is not primarily that iD
> developers make decisions the way they do (which i do but which i also
> consider to be their legitimate decision) but that the OSMF endorses
> this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it
> an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and
> validation.  That adds on top of the pre-existing advantage of being
> financially backed in a significant way (by paying developers) by
> multiple (and in parts still anonymous) financiers.

Fair enough, but what would we gain by taking it off the homepage?  I
suppose more could be done to present competing tools on an equal
footing, but so far the only tool that appears to play in the same
space is Potlatch. (JOSM, Meerkartor, QGIS, etc. are all stand-alone
applications, not something that you can simply pull up in any web
browser.

Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would
listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a
financial conflict of interest to be highly inappropriate. I say that
as someone who's tried very hard to avoid any appearance of
impropriety in other projects. (I'm a member of the core team on
another project, and I have turned down a prize for a particular
development effort because it might give rise to such an appearance -
even though it was offered after the fact in appreciation, not before
the fact in anticipation.)

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

Re: solving iD conflict

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Friday 24 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be
> considered as better than iD that was refused without a good reason?
> There is Potlatch 2, but relying on Flash immediately makes it worse
> (even assuming that interface and design is better than in iD).

Note i am not talking about the editor as a software product but about
the presets and validation rules here.  

> Or is there some explicit or implicit announcement that iD will be
> kept as default even in case of something better (like forked iD with
> some changes to presets and validation rules)?

That is obviously a hen-and-egg problem - no one will likely develop
alternative presets for iD if it is clear that you would have to fight
a successfull uphill battle against the full inertia of the OSMF to get
them on the website.

It does not really matter if you consider it unfair or not (and using
this term was therefore probably a poor choice).  It is not about what
is fair from a moral perspective, it is about what is a responsible
choice for ensuring a healthy competitive situation and a good variety
of editing choices being available to mappers in the long term.  The
OSMF would have the choice to open the competitive situation for the
default editor and components of it like presets on osm.org even if at
the moment there are no direct alternative ready for use.

For the map layers being offered on osm.org we already have a policy:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers

It would be well possible if in analogy to that we had policies for
editors or editor components like presets or validation rules.  Having
a clear regulatory framework that defines what conditions you have to
fulfill is very helpful in encouraging people taking the initiative to
start such a project.

--
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

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



24 May 2019, 15:47 by [hidden email]:
That's human nature too, really. Those who agree with the consensus
have little incentive to speak up, and those who disagree will be
highly motivated to seize the opportunity to argue for their ideas.
Nevertheless, that's why a forum that supports the passionate advocacy
of new ideas will be a poor place to get information about the current
practice.
Yes, mailing list is best for things that are unclear/dubious/undocumented
and require discussion

For already established - see wiki, presets of editors, map renderings, validators
and taginfo

With usual caveats applying to all of this sources - it is worth checking
things like

- last edits to wiki page and its discussion page
- whatever maintainer of software decided to ignore opinions of everybody else on a given issue
- for rendering/editors/QA - is there an open issue with known problem waiting for a fix

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

Re: solving iD conflict

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would
> listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a
> financial conflict of interest to be highly inappropriate. [...]

Please don't put words into my mouth here - i have said what i said and
not what you have read into that.

--
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
|

Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

ebel
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On 24/05/2019 15:47, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I'm asserting that it provides little useful information about
> _current_ practice, since it chiefly devotes its attention to _future_
> practice: it discusses an ideal world, rather than the real world that
> we inhabit.
 > ...
> documented on the WIki, and apparently agreed-to by a fairly broad
> community, pretty much everywhere but here.

Isn't this a case of using the wrong t̶o̶o̶l̶ community for the task?
The mailing list are for discussion. We have help.openstreetmap.org for
Q&A, and the wiki for documentation. "The ML makes a poor documentation"
well yes of course it does?

Did someone point you to the tagging ML to answer beginner questions? I
agree that's not a good suggestion.


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

Re: solving iD conflict

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:46 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
24 May 2019, 14:48 by [hidden email]:
OSMF endorses
this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it
an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and
validation.
Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be considered as better than iD
that was refused without a good reason? There is Potlatch 2, but relying on Flash
immediately makes it worse (even assuming that interface and design is better than in iD).


For many tasks that I'm occasionally doing with iD it would be faster to do them with level0, (most of those that concern only tags, including but not limited to fixing typos). While it would be a nice complement It isn't actually a replacement though, you need some knowledge because no autocompletion, validation or presets are available...

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by ebel
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:20 AM Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Isn't this a case of using the wrong t̶o̶o̶l̶ community for the task?
> The mailing list are for discussion. We have help.openstreetmap.org for
> Q&A, and the wiki for documentation. "The ML makes a poor documentation"
> well yes of course it does?
>
> Did someone point you to the tagging ML to answer beginner questions? I
> agree that's not a good suggestion.

We've already identified resource discoverability as an issue. I was a
beginner, and we don't really make it easy for a beginner to find out
whom to ask. "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" seemed a
place where such a question would be on topic. I already mentioned
that I'd read the Wiki. I also have extensive prior experience in how
Wikis work, so also read the talk page and consulted Overpass to get a
feel for whether the Wiki article reflected actual practice. From the
contentious talk page and the fact that I found no examples in about a
100-km radius of where I was mapping, I arrived at the wrong
conclusion about the acceptance of the tag.

In any case, I think the experience that the tagging ML was the wrong
tool for that job is a key observation. The presents and tagging
recommendations in iD are essentially the aggregation of answers to a
great many beginner questions - it is, after all, supposed to be an
entry-level tool. Just as that single question didn't elicit a
relevant answer, a large number of similar questions, in the
aggregate, are likely not to get relevant answers. Just as the tagging
ML is unfit for the purpose of answering a single beginner question,
it's unfit for the broader purpose of answering many such questions
_en masse._ It doesn't have to be characterized as 'toxic' or
'hostile,' simply 'irrelevant to the task at hand.'  iD's
recommendations should reflect broadly accepted current practice, and
this mailing list is not a good place to discover what that is.

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

Re: Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

Valor Naram
When I came to OSM I started mapping my house number. Then I don't participated for 3 years until I came back and I hadn't had any problems of whom to ask. I edited something and then iD lead me to the "OSM_de" group on Telegram.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict
From: Kevin Kenny
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:


On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:20 AM Rory McCann wrote:
> Isn't this a case of using the wrong t̶o̶o̶l̶ community for the task?
> The mailing list are for discussion. We have help.openstreetmap.org for
> Q&A, and the wiki for documentation. "The ML makes a poor documentation"
> well yes of course it does?
>
> Did someone point you to the tagging ML to answer beginner questions? I
> agree that's not a good suggestion.

We've already identified resource discoverability as an issue. I was a
beginner, and we don't really make it easy for a beginner to find out
whom to ask. "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" seemed a
place where such a question would be on topic. I already mentioned
that I'd read the Wiki. I also have extensive prior experience in how
Wikis work, so also read the talk page and consulted Overpass to get a
feel for whether the Wiki article reflected actual practice. From the
contentious talk page and the fact that I found no examples in about a
100-km radius of where I was mapping, I arrived at the wrong
conclusion about the acceptance of the tag.

In any case, I think the experience that the tagging ML was the wrong
tool for that job is a key observation. The presents and tagging
recommendations in iD are essentially the aggregation of answers to a
great many beginner questions - it is, after all, supposed to be an
entry-level tool. Just as that single question didn't elicit a
relevant answer, a large number of similar questions, in the
aggregate, are likely not to get relevant answers. Just as the tagging
ML is unfit for the purpose of answering a single beginner question,
it's unfit for the broader purpose of answering many such questions
_en masse._ It doesn't have to be characterized as 'toxic' or
'hostile,' simply 'irrelevant to the task at hand.' iD's
recommendations should reflect broadly accepted current practice, and
this mailing list is not a good place to discover what that is.

_______________________________________________
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: Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
24 May 2019, 17:22 by [hidden email]:
iD's
recommendations should reflect broadly accepted current practice, and
this mailing list is not a good place to discover what that is.
It may not be the best place to start such search but it is one of possible tools.
It should not be ignored completely, especially clear consensus on
mailing list (where it is typical that there are 4 opinions after 3 people commented)
should be seriously considered, not ignored.

And it is anyway not explaining reasons for ignoring also other other sources of information.

_______________________________________________
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 SimonPoole
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). 

I've "gotten my way" in threads that had toxic elements before, so no, I won't find that.

If you are addressing a very diverse group, disagreement is the name of the game. 

Disagreement isn't one of the problems I listed. The closest is this: receiving absolutely incompatible opinions that are presented as authoritative and certain. They are a serious challenge to the usefulness of this list. It requires you to disregard several positions - the claims aren't really up for debate, as presented - and given the nonexistent standards of decorum, that often goes poorly.

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

I strongly prefer to not go after individuals (which is what that would turn into), as that doesn't serve any purpose but division and pettiness. If you ask privately I'd be happy to send you examples.

On Fri, May 24, 2019, 1:56 AM Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:


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

_______________________________________________
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 dieterdreist
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 (...)

Sorry, I misstated my meaning. Instead of "the topic of this mailing list" it should say, "the topic of this thread".

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.

Without some systemic reforms, I anticipate that that will make things even worse. Instead of sniping at developers, it will be sniping between coalitions. The sniping shouldn't happen at all: we should keep it civil and constructive.

On Fri, May 24, 2019, 2:24 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


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

_______________________________________________
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 Florian Lohoff-2
You make good points. Creating tools for editing OSM is a bit of a nightmare already (we've had many students try and fail) before having to grapple with tag decisions. 

Here's what you have to do when figuring out how to implement most tags beyond the few "easy" ones like highway=primary:

- Visit the wiki (you need to know about the wiki being there place to go). Hope there's an entry (there might not be).

- Attempt to interpret the meaning of an almost certainly underspecified schema.

- Look at some examples of it in use, hope they are representative.

- If you're so inclined, contact this list. Receive strong opinions (at best) incompatible not just with one another, but the wiki and the use cases found.

- Make people angry with your decision.

Each of these steps could be improved by having better systems in place for communication and specification. For example: have wiki editing action items at the end of most discussions 

On Fri, May 24, 2019, 3:58 AM Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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 Paul Allen
This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned...

There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a community-oriented project.

On Fri, May 24, 2019, 4:55 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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)

Valor Naram
I could try to investigate and I am neutral because I don't have an opinion on that topic yet. You have just to say it and I will prepare an investigation like pointing out my role in this process and some other things that needs to be done beforehand.

Great wishes by

Sören alias Valor Naram


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)
From: Nick Bolten
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:


This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned...

There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a community-oriented project.

On Fri, May 24, 2019, 4:55 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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 Nick Bolten
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned...

Projection much? 

There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a community-oriented project.

YOU were the one who claimed, without evidence, that others had accused you of acting in bad faith.
YOU MADE THAT CLAIM.

I wondered why you had done so because, in another sub-thread, you implied that I was disagreeing
with you because I hated people with visual impairments.  Here's the quote from that thread:

Anyways, that's a strange way to frame "mapping something I don't care about". How is it obsessive? I've already listed several important use cases, so I will be blunt: do you think people with low vision are irrelevant and don't matter? Is this an ableist community? Do pedestrians getting struck by cars not matter? Is it okay that they die?

That looks very much to me like you were demonizing those who disagreed with you.  Poisoning the
well.  It sure looks that way.  Whether you intended it to or not.  It came across as you accusing me
of hating the visually impaired, or at least not caring if they live or die.  People should ignore
anything I say, because I hate the blind.

If people have been accusing you of acting in bad faith (I've yet to see evidence of that) then I
can understand why if that is how you typically interact with them.  But everybody is marching out
of step except you, so lets have a moderated forum where you are the moderator.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
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)

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
24 May 2019, 18:56 by [hidden email]:
Each of these steps could be improved by having better systems in place for communication and specification. For example: have wiki editing action items at the end of most discussions 
What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back it at mailing list, update
if there is something wrong with it?

(note: it is not necessary to reach agreement before doing this, documenting
diverse opinions/situations is very useful)

_______________________________________________
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 Paul Allen
Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. I'm not going to participate in that, aside to clarify that the quote regarding use cases of crossings and their relevance to pedestrian safety and people with disabilities was in response to both a personal accusation ("obsessive") and several claims about how mapping these things don't matter, despite the use cases I had repeatedly gone over. I felt that directness was necessary, because that is the implication of these facts: (1) low vision individuals need this information to navigate and pedestrians are safer at marked crossings, and (2) it was repeatedly stated that mapping these things isn't important.

They were asked as questions, and there was no response.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned...

Projection much? 

There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a community-oriented project.

YOU were the one who claimed, without evidence, that others had accused you of acting in bad faith.
YOU MADE THAT CLAIM.

I wondered why you had done so because, in another sub-thread, you implied that I was disagreeing
with you because I hated people with visual impairments.  Here's the quote from that thread:

Anyways, that's a strange way to frame "mapping something I don't care about". How is it obsessive? I've already listed several important use cases, so I will be blunt: do you think people with low vision are irrelevant and don't matter? Is this an ableist community? Do pedestrians getting struck by cars not matter? Is it okay that they die?

That looks very much to me like you were demonizing those who disagreed with you.  Poisoning the
well.  It sure looks that way.  Whether you intended it to or not.  It came across as you accusing me
of hating the visually impaired, or at least not caring if they live or die.  People should ignore
anything I say, because I hate the blind.

If people have been accusing you of acting in bad faith (I've yet to see evidence of that) then I
can understand why if that is how you typically interact with them.  But everybody is marching out
of step except you, so lets have a moderated forum where you are the moderator.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
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 Mateusz Konieczny-3
> What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back it at mailing list, update if there is something wrong with it?

Yes, exactly! And sometimes the thing that's "wrong with it" is just that it's vague, does not adequately address exceptions, or doesn't have enough examples for people in various parts of the world to know whether it's relevant to their infrastructure.

Is there a "gold standard" wiki page for a particular tag that could be used to figure out what might be missing other pages and turn that into action items?

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
24 May 2019, 18:56 by [hidden email]:
Each of these steps could be improved by having better systems in place for communication and specification. For example: have wiki editing action items at the end of most discussions 
What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back it at mailing list, update
if there is something wrong with it?

(note: it is not necessary to reach agreement before doing this, documenting
diverse opinions/situations is very useful)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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