Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Silent Spike]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Paul Allen  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  wrote:

>
> On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:27, Silent Spike 
> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Simon Poole]

Am 24.05.2019 um 19:37 schrieb Kevin Kenny:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:27, Silent Spike  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Silent Spike]

>
> 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  wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten  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 o

Re: [Tagging] 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  wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  wrote:

>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten  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.
>>

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Dave F via Tagging]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Dave F via Tagging]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

> 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 
wrote:

> 24 May 2019, 18:56 by nbol...@gmail.com:
>
> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

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  wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 May 2019, 18:56 by nbol...@gmail.com:

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 bySören 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 <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 09:56, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> 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 withthem, 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 recallseeing that particular accusation on this list while I've been here.  Or it may be subtlypoisoning the well: those who disagree with me are obviously acting in bad faith because theyaccuse me of acting in bad faith [but no evidence of such accusations is provided].-- Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

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  wrote:

>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 09:56, Simon Poole  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

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  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 f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

> 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 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 01:00 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten :
>
>> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

> 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  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  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

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:46 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> 24 May 2019, 14:48 by o...@imagico.de:
>
> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Christoph Hormann]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 May 2019, 15:47 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Christoph Hormann]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:49 AM Christoph Hormann  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 10
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 May 2019, 14:48 by o...@imagico.de:

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Christoph Hormann]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 May 2019, 13:32 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> 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/043350.html 

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/044190.html 


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
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Aconscriptionnumber#values 

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
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/opening_hours#values 

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 09:56, Simon Poole  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Kevin Kenny]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Florian Lohoff]

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 f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Christoph Hormann]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 01:00 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten :

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Simon Poole]

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  > 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

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

> 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  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
> pri

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:39 PM Frederik Ramm  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Frederik Ramm]

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 frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[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...

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:05 PM Tobias Zwick  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 syst

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

> 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 
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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Tobias Zwick]

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  > wrote:
> 
> 23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de :
> 
> 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...
>  

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23 May 2019, 21:58 by nbol...@gmail.com:

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Michael Reichert]

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)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Nick Bolten]

> 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 
wrote:

> 23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de:
>
> 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
> 

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Valor Naram]

> +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 wayI can do that but I am not quite sure about my social skills. But I will take it seriously as I always do when I am moderating or organising.CheersSören alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)From: Mateusz Konieczny To: CC: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
  

  
  
23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de:reverse this development.Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and itwould be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupidwhat 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de:

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging