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

Kevin Kenny-3
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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.

Forgive me for drawing what appeared to be an obvious inference. If
you don't want to imply that the project enjoys some sort of unfair
privilege, or is subject to some sort of unfair influence, by reason
of its financial support, then why bring it up at all - particularly
the anonymity? Lost of open-source software projects have received
donations to support development. Some donors have wished to remain
anonymous. Mentioning such support in the context of other unfair
advantages that you see iD as enjoying is highly suggestive, whether
you intended it or not.

_______________________________________________
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

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
Hi

I don't wish for another thread to go off on a tangent so may I ask you to read this one for my views on the hi-jacked 'platform' tag & the numerous current PT schemas and ask you to contribute there:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html

But to quickly summarise: What Jo said.

DaveF

On 23/05/2019 23:18, 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?

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: solving iD conflict

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote:
> Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched.

But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven't seen any of the behaviour
you claim. You probably need to grow some thicker skin.

If you're looking for sycophantic agreement with any point you make,
then this, or most other OSM forums probably isn't for you.
Disagreements & discussive arguments are part & parcel of an open forum.

DaveF

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

Re: solving iD conflict

Nick Bolten
> But Nick, /you/ made it personal. 

No, I didn't. I named nobody. I kept it fairly vague. I made no references to any threads. I've actually explicitly avoided making it personal.

And yet, this thread is devolving into personal attacks. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of my points about decorum.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote:
> Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched.

But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven't seen any of the behaviour
you claim. You probably need to grow some thicker skin.

If you're looking for sycophantic agreement with any point you make,
then this, or most other OSM forums probably isn't for you.
Disagreements & discussive arguments are part & parcel of an open forum.

DaveF

_______________________________________________
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

Tagging mailing list


On 24/05/2019 18:56, Nick Bolten wrote:
>> But Nick, /you/ made it personal.
> No, I didn't. I named nobody.

Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've
been self referential numerous times:
"My experience with this mailing list"

> And yet, this thread is devolving into personal attacks. I couldn't have
> asked for a better demonstration of my points about decorum.

If you come looking for an argument, the chances are you'll find one.
Especially with these non specific accusations which few here can recognise.

DaveF

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

Re: solving iD conflict

Nick Bolten
> Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list"

It doesn't, actually. "Making it personal" means unduly making it about someone else, personally. Making them have a personal stake.

But even if it did mean, "it involves an individual in any way, including vaguely sharing one's experience", which is how I'm interpreting this claim, I'm confused about why this justifies the lack of decorum.

> If you come looking for an argument, the chances are you'll find one. Especially with these non specific accusations which few here can recognise.

This seems to justify the idea that disagreement = expect petty fights, given the context. This is also demonstrating my points about decorum.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:09 AM Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 24/05/2019 18:56, Nick Bolten wrote:
>> But Nick, /you/ made it personal.
> No, I didn't. I named nobody.

Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've
been self referential numerous times:
"My experience with this mailing list"

> And yet, this thread is devolving into personal attacks. I couldn't have
> asked for a better demonstration of my points about decorum.

If you come looking for an argument, the chances are you'll find one.
Especially with these non specific accusations which few here can recognise.

DaveF

_______________________________________________
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 18:30, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched.

Yes.  I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people.  I noticed when you called me
condescending.
 
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.

These things are important.  It's just that some of us think your logic is wrong.

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

YET.  Your points seem (to me) to be invalid and self-contradictory at times.  I have finally
managed to come up with a perversely-pedantic interpretation of "markings" that would
make your position consistent, but still deeply flawed (and, in fact, your position would
put those with visual impairment at greater risk).  And, given your behaviour here, is there
any point in me attempting to take this further?  Most people here don't seem to see the
problems you claim to exist, so why bother?

BTW, if we're going to harp on points that were not responded to, what about you poisoning the well
by implying I hate blind people?

--
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)

Nick Bolten
> Yes.  I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people.

1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind.
2) I didn't say you hated anyone.
3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually believe that. The hope was that those making these claims would be jostled into confronting the issue head-on. Unfortunately, there was no response - this could've been clarified.

> I noticed when you called me condescending. 

I don't believe I've ever called anyone condescending.

The rest of the response seems like something to discuss on other threads.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:21 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched.

Yes.  I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people.  I noticed when you called me
condescending.
 
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.

These things are important.  It's just that some of us think your logic is wrong.

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

YET.  Your points seem (to me) to be invalid and self-contradictory at times.  I have finally
managed to come up with a perversely-pedantic interpretation of "markings" that would
make your position consistent, but still deeply flawed (and, in fact, your position would
put those with visual impairment at greater risk).  And, given your behaviour here, is there
any point in me attempting to take this further?  Most people here don't seem to see the
problems you claim to exist, so why bother?

BTW, if we're going to harp on points that were not responded to, what about you poisoning the well
by implying I hate blind people?

--
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

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes.  I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people.

1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind.

Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment:

The legal definition of blindness varies from country to country but most nations, including the UK define it as having a visual acuity of worse than 20 in 200. ... The limit usually imposed is a visual field of 20 degrees or less, which is about 10% of the visual field of someone with 'normal' eyesight.

It's been a long time since "blind" meant "no vision whatsoever."  It's sometimes considered more
polite to refer to the visually impaired, but that is more typing when you are referring to people who
are legally blind.  BTW, I am visually impaired but not legally blind (or close to it).  If you wear
spectacles, you are visually impaired (I have other visual problems besides wearing spectacles).
It is not incorrect to use "blind" here.

2) I didn't say you hated anyone.

You implied it.  Read what you wrote carefully.  About me not caring if blind (visually-impaired
if you insist) people die crossing the road.  I'd have to hate people to not care if they live or die.
At best I'd have to be sociopathic.

3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually believe that.

It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the context of the rest of
the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question."  Read the whole paragraph again.
I can quote it back to you again, if necessary.
 
The hope was that those making these claims would be jostled into confronting the issue head-on. Unfortunately, there was no response - this could've been clarified.

I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at it.  I'm willing to
assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points across.  I'm even
willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack
of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your
proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.

> I noticed when you called me condescending. 

I don't believe I've ever called anyone condescending.

It was another of your anonymous "one person was condescending to me" side-swipes.  You
do a lot of that.  I'm willing to assume you think it makes you less confrontational, but I think
otherwise.  Because everyone can work out who you're talking about but you deny that person
the ability to easily respond without risking a deflection like "I never called YOU condescending,
I just said there were condescending people."  A veiled insult is still an insult.

The rest of the response seems like something to discuss on other threads.

Brief summary:  crossing signals and crossing markings (such as zebra stripes) are
NOT orthogonal in practice (at least in the UK, other countries may differ); allowing them
to be marked as such on OSM would lead to greater dangers for the visually impaired.

However, that all depends on whether or not I've correctly interpreted what you mean by "markings."
Until today I couldn't make head or tail of what you meant by them since it contradicted most
people's natural interpretation of how crossings are implemented and how they work and
at times you seemed to contradict yourself (the Socratic method doesn't work too well here, if
that's what you were attempting). Maybe I'm missing something.  Or maybe you are.

So can we have a meaningful attempt to figure out each other's positions or should we just
continue lobbing veiled insults at each other until the moderator kicks one or both of us off the list?

--
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)

Nick Bolten
> Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment (...)

Nevertheless, I said low vision.

> You implied it.

I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case.

> It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the context of the rest of the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question."  Read the whole paragraph again. I can quote it back to you again, if necessary.

Sure, but on the thread for that proposal, please.

> I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at it.  I'm willing to assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points across.  I'm even willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.

I don't see how responses like this serve any purpose. Seems like a good example of the toxicity I'm saying we should try to do away with, as a community.

> It was another of your anonymous "one person was condescending to me" side-swipes.  You do a lot of that.  I'm willing to assume you think it makes you less confrontational, but I think
otherwise.  Because everyone can work out who you're talking about but you deny that person the ability to easily respond without risking a deflection like "I never called YOU condescending,
I just said there were condescending people."  A veiled insult is still an insult.

1. There were several people asking for an explicit reference / evidence for my claims. They did not "work it out" and find your interpretation.
2. I wasn't thinking of you, at all, in any of my bullet points. You've taken that on yourself, assuming they're about you. In fact, I wasn't thinking about anyone in particular - I did that on purpose. I have zero interest in picking on any individual. I think I've been pretty clear on that.
3. When I search my email, nothing comes up recently for "condescending" aside from this particular thread. I mean, there have been some pretty clearly condescending replies from various individuals in the past week or two, but I don't believe I used that language.
4. I fail to see how describing a response as condescending would even be an insult. I don't recall calling anyone's intelligence into question, but I've sure been on the receiving end of it. Am I wrong to point this out?

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes.  I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people.

1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind.

Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment:

The legal definition of blindness varies from country to country but most nations, including the UK define it as having a visual acuity of worse than 20 in 200. ... The limit usually imposed is a visual field of 20 degrees or less, which is about 10% of the visual field of someone with 'normal' eyesight.

It's been a long time since "blind" meant "no vision whatsoever."  It's sometimes considered more
polite to refer to the visually impaired, but that is more typing when you are referring to people who
are legally blind.  BTW, I am visually impaired but not legally blind (or close to it).  If you wear
spectacles, you are visually impaired (I have other visual problems besides wearing spectacles).
It is not incorrect to use "blind" here.

2) I didn't say you hated anyone.

You implied it.  Read what you wrote carefully.  About me not caring if blind (visually-impaired
if you insist) people die crossing the road.  I'd have to hate people to not care if they live or die.
At best I'd have to be sociopathic.

3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually believe that.

It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the context of the rest of
the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question."  Read the whole paragraph again.
I can quote it back to you again, if necessary.
 
The hope was that those making these claims would be jostled into confronting the issue head-on. Unfortunately, there was no response - this could've been clarified.

I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at it.  I'm willing to
assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points across.  I'm even
willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack
of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your
proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.

> I noticed when you called me condescending. 

I don't believe I've ever called anyone condescending.

It was another of your anonymous "one person was condescending to me" side-swipes.  You
do a lot of that.  I'm willing to assume you think it makes you less confrontational, but I think
otherwise.  Because everyone can work out who you're talking about but you deny that person
the ability to easily respond without risking a deflection like "I never called YOU condescending,
I just said there were condescending people."  A veiled insult is still an insult.

The rest of the response seems like something to discuss on other threads.

Brief summary:  crossing signals and crossing markings (such as zebra stripes) are
NOT orthogonal in practice (at least in the UK, other countries may differ); allowing them
to be marked as such on OSM would lead to greater dangers for the visually impaired.

However, that all depends on whether or not I've correctly interpreted what you mean by "markings."
Until today I couldn't make head or tail of what you meant by them since it contradicted most
people's natural interpretation of how crossings are implemented and how they work and
at times you seemed to contradict yourself (the Socratic method doesn't work too well here, if
that's what you were attempting). Maybe I'm missing something.  Or maybe you are.

So can we have a meaningful attempt to figure out each other's positions or should we just
continue lobbing veiled insults at each other until the moderator kicks one or both of us off the list?

--
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
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment (...)

Nevertheless, I said low vision.

Potatoes, potahtoes.  Actually, now I think about it, that's not a good analogy.  Here's what you said:

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?

So, according to your correction, I don't just hate the legally blind, I hate people with "low vision," a
far lower bar than the one I assumed you intended.  My hatred for humanity has been greatly
extended, it seems.

> You implied it.

I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case.

And  I apologize for saying your behaviour seemed obsessive.  However, back then I did not
know why you were so eager to push us down a particular path when so many felt (and still feel)
it unnecessary.  That doesn't mean I agree with your reasons for disrupting a couple of
million tags, now I know what is driving this push, because I don't.  But at least I know it's not
obsession driving it.

> It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the context of the rest of the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question."  Read the whole paragraph again. I can quote it back to you again, if necessary.

Sure, but on the thread for that proposal, please.

Ooops.  I did it here.  Because I'm responding here.  And I don't know which other thread you mean,
since so many threads have been spawned about this.

> I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at it.  I'm willing to assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points across.  I'm even willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.

I don't see how responses like this serve any purpose. Seems like a good example of the toxicity I'm saying we should try to do away with, as a community.

It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you.  It wasn't here before.  It seems that anything
that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic.  Anyone who points out that we didn't have any
noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic.  In short, you appear to be using "toxicity" to silence
anyone who disagrees with you, a behaviour which some of us feel actually is toxic.  I was willing
to assume you're bad at communicating rather than behaving as you do as a deliberate strategy
to silence criticism.  That position is becoming less tenable for me as the thread continues.

3. When I search my email, nothing comes up recently for "condescending" aside from this particular thread. I mean, there have been some pretty clearly condescending replies from various individuals in the past week or two, but I don't believe I used that language.

I can't find it now.  Which could mean memory problems on my part.  Or worse.  In which case,
my apologies.

4. I fail to see how describing a response as condescending would even be an insult. I don't recall calling anyone's intelligence into question, but I've sure been on the receiving end of it. Am I wrong to point this out?

You are no more wrong (or right) to point it out than I am to point out where your posts appear to
be personal attacks.  I don't think it's doing much for the list in general and I suspect many are
bored with it.  But at least one person here is having difficulty communicating in a way that doesn't
arouse ire in at least one other person.

--
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)

Nick Bolten
I don't believe there is any purpose being served by this back-and-forth. I could kind of justify it for a bit in that it's demonstrating my original points about decorum, but that's a dead horse now.

I think drawn-out rehashings of a particular proposal thread should probably go in that thread, so let's keep them there.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:01 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment (...)

Nevertheless, I said low vision.

Potatoes, potahtoes.  Actually, now I think about it, that's not a good analogy.  Here's what you said:

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?

So, according to your correction, I don't just hate the legally blind, I hate people with "low vision," a
far lower bar than the one I assumed you intended.  My hatred for humanity has been greatly
extended, it seems.

> You implied it.

I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case.

And  I apologize for saying your behaviour seemed obsessive.  However, back then I did not
know why you were so eager to push us down a particular path when so many felt (and still feel)
it unnecessary.  That doesn't mean I agree with your reasons for disrupting a couple of
million tags, now I know what is driving this push, because I don't.  But at least I know it's not
obsession driving it.

> It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the context of the rest of the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question."  Read the whole paragraph again. I can quote it back to you again, if necessary.

Sure, but on the thread for that proposal, please.

Ooops.  I did it here.  Because I'm responding here.  And I don't know which other thread you mean,
since so many threads have been spawned about this.

> I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at it.  I'm willing to assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points across.  I'm even willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.

I don't see how responses like this serve any purpose. Seems like a good example of the toxicity I'm saying we should try to do away with, as a community.

It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you.  It wasn't here before.  It seems that anything
that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic.  Anyone who points out that we didn't have any
noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic.  In short, you appear to be using "toxicity" to silence
anyone who disagrees with you, a behaviour which some of us feel actually is toxic.  I was willing
to assume you're bad at communicating rather than behaving as you do as a deliberate strategy
to silence criticism.  That position is becoming less tenable for me as the thread continues.

3. When I search my email, nothing comes up recently for "condescending" aside from this particular thread. I mean, there have been some pretty clearly condescending replies from various individuals in the past week or two, but I don't believe I used that language.

I can't find it now.  Which could mean memory problems on my part.  Or worse.  In which case,
my apologies.

4. I fail to see how describing a response as condescending would even be an insult. I don't recall calling anyone's intelligence into question, but I've sure been on the receiving end of it. Am I wrong to point this out?

You are no more wrong (or right) to point it out than I am to point out where your posts appear to
be personal attacks.  I don't think it's doing much for the list in general and I suspect many are
bored with it.  But at least one person here is having difficulty communicating in a way that doesn't
arouse ire in at least one other person.

--
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)

Silent Spike
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you.  It wasn't here before.  It seems that anything
that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic.  Anyone who points out that we didn't have any
noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic.  In short, you appear to be using "toxicity" to silence
anyone who disagrees with you, a behaviour which some of us feel actually is toxic.  I was willing
to assume you're bad at communicating rather than behaving as you do as a deliberate strategy
to silence criticism.  That position is becoming less tenable for me as the thread continues.

 You are no more wrong (or right) to point it out than I am to point out where your posts appear to
be personal attacks.  I don't think it's doing much for the list in general and I suspect many are
bored with it.  But at least one person here is having difficulty communicating in a way that doesn't
arouse ire in at least one other person.

I find this extremely ironic after all that I've read today on this mailing list. Have been internally debating calling you out on it, in some sense it feels like stooping to your level. If nobody does though, you'll go on thinking everyone's in agreement with you for some reason.

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:01 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment (...)

Nevertheless, I said low vision.

Potatoes, potahtoes.  Actually, now I think about it, that's not a good analogy.  Here's what you said:

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?

So, according to your correction, I don't just hate the legally blind, I hate people with "low vision," a
far lower bar than the one I assumed you intended.  My hatred for humanity has been greatly
extended, it seems.

> You implied it.

I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case.

And  I apologize for saying your behaviour seemed obsessive.  However, back then I did not
know why you were so eager to push us down a particular path when so many felt (and still feel)
it unnecessary.  That doesn't mean I agree with your reasons for disrupting a couple of
million tags, now I know what is driving this push, because I don't.  But at least I know it's not
obsession driving it.

> It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the context of the rest of the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question."  Read the whole paragraph again. I can quote it back to you again, if necessary.

Sure, but on the thread for that proposal, please.

Ooops.  I did it here.  Because I'm responding here.  And I don't know which other thread you mean,
since so many threads have been spawned about this.

> I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at it.  I'm willing to assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points across.  I'm even willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.

I don't see how responses like this serve any purpose. Seems like a good example of the toxicity I'm saying we should try to do away with, as a community.

It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you.  It wasn't here before.  It seems that anything
that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic.  Anyone who points out that we didn't have any
noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic.  In short, you appear to be using "toxicity" to silence
anyone who disagrees with you, a behaviour which some of us feel actually is toxic.  I was willing
to assume you're bad at communicating rather than behaving as you do as a deliberate strategy
to silence criticism.  That position is becoming less tenable for me as the thread continues.

3. When I search my email, nothing comes up recently for "condescending" aside from this particular thread. I mean, there have been some pretty clearly condescending replies from various individuals in the past week or two, but I don't believe I used that language.

I can't find it now.  Which could mean memory problems on my part.  Or worse.  In which case,
my apologies.

4. I fail to see how describing a response as condescending would even be an insult. I don't recall calling anyone's intelligence into question, but I've sure been on the receiving end of it. Am I wrong to point this out?

You are no more wrong (or right) to point it out than I am to point out where your posts appear to
be personal attacks.  I don't think it's doing much for the list in general and I suspect many are
bored with it.  But at least one person here is having difficulty communicating in a way that doesn't
arouse ire in at least one other person.

--
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

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:27, Silent Spike <[hidden email]> wrote:

I find this extremely ironic after all that I've read today on this mailing list. Have been internally debating calling you out on it, in some sense it feels like stooping to your level.

But you stooped anyway.  Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.
 
If nobody does though, you'll go on thinking everyone's in agreement with you for some reason.

If that were your objective, you could have mailed me off the list.  That would also have corrected
any delusion I might have had.  Instead you let everyone else know that you don't like my responses
here.  I will let you decide if that is also ironic.

--
Paul



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

Re: solving iD conflict

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3

Am 24.05.2019 um 19:37 schrieb Kevin Kenny:

> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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.
> Forgive me for drawing what appeared to be an obvious inference. If
> you don't want to imply that the project enjoys some sort of unfair
> privilege, or is subject to some sort of unfair influence, by reason
> of its financial support, then why bring it up at all - particularly
> the anonymity? Lost of open-source software projects have received
> donations to support development. Some donors have wished to remain
> anonymous. Mentioning such support in the context of other unfair
> advantages that you see iD as enjoying is highly suggestive, whether
> you intended it or not.

Actually nearly all of the above is true though it is debatable if
having deeper pockets to draw upon is "unfair", but it just isn't a
"conflict of interest". The iD developers and there employers have
neither formal (as in the law) or informal (as in having committed to
any specific behaviour) obligations towards the OSMF and the OSM
community, there simply can't be a CoI if you don't have interests that
conflict.

Is the situation massively intransparent? Sure and I don't think
comparing with random other OSS projects is warranted as they typically
don't exert control over the content produced in a comparable fashion
(even comparing say to WPs visual editor where undoutably heads would
already be rolling in a similar situation).

Simon


> _______________________________________________
> 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)

Silent Spike
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
 But you stooped anyway.  Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. 

Why create a situation in which stooping is a possibility? My opinion is exactly the opinion you've been projecting onto this mailing list at others.

If that were your objective, you could have mailed me off the list.  That would also have corrected
any delusion I might have had.  Instead you let everyone else know that you don't like my responses
here.  I will let you decide if that is also ironic.

You could have mailed individuals off the list in the first place. As for why I didn't, you didn't exactly create the impression that you were a reasonable person who would respond well to criticism. Plus I don't know what the etiquette of mailing lists is. Generally I'm in favour of transparent open discussion.


On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:27, Silent Spike <[hidden email]> wrote:

I find this extremely ironic after all that I've read today on this mailing list. Have been internally debating calling you out on it, in some sense it feels like stooping to your level.

But you stooped anyway.  Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.
 
If nobody does though, you'll go on thinking everyone's in agreement with you for some reason.

If that were your objective, you could have mailed me off the list.  That would also have corrected
any delusion I might have had.  Instead you let everyone else know that you don't like my responses
here.  I will let you decide if that is also ironic.

--
Paul


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

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