Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

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

(with my OSMF board hat on)

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

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

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Markus]

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 16:48, Jo  wrote:
>
> This has been discussed on the public transport list very recently, but as 
> usual, without any resolution one way or the other. Status quo rules.

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

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[mmd]

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

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

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

-- 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[john whelan]

I would support a forked version of iD as a default editor on the home page.

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

Cheerio John

On Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:35 AM Frederik Ramm,  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
> > As I see it we can choose between
>
> [...]
>
> > - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
> > commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)
>
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
>
> It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> even for the community itself.
>
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have
> some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site.
>
> We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to
> establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team
> applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new
> patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> (*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel
> is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right
> in pointing out that an apology is in order -
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the
> the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to
> maintainers" feature.
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 May 2019, 10:32 by frede...@remote.org:

> Hi,
>
> On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> As I see it we can choose between
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
>> commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)
>>
>
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead
> with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and
> balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the
> "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.
>
> It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having
> to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough
> even for the community itself.
>
I agree, it is perfectly fine to not spend time on researching what community
wants and judging what is the consensus (it is stressful, takes massive amount
of time and in general there is always an unhappy group and it is quite hard to
decide whatever one did it the right way and it n worse in cases when 
one also proposed/spearheaded solution that (s)he is now promoting etc etc).

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


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

Bye
Frederik

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

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Simon Poole]

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

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

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

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

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

Simon

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




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

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

Yes, i agree for this particular situation.

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

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

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27 May 2019, 19:38 by o...@imagico.de:

> On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>>
>> By default iD actively suggests to
>> - change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
>> - objects selected by user during editing
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to only touch 
> features modified by the user in the version deployed on osm.org?
>
So that it would change from

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

to

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

?

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

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



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

For adding highway=footway on public_transport=platform areas I disagree both 
with how it
was introduced and with rule itself
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

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

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

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27 May 2019, 17:51 by o...@imagico.de:

>  actively modifying features the mapper has not touched in 
> their fundamental semantics.  As already hinted i know too little about 
> how iD works to specifically say something about how it fits in here.
>
By default iD actively suggests to 
- change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
- objects selected by user during editing

iD settings can be changed to suggest changes to all downloaded objects
(like JOSM)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Dave F via talk]

On 27/05/2019 16:26, Frederik Ramm wrote:


AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" and didn't
hear anyone complain about that.
That's a bit different. "created-by" was, err,,, created by the 
developers of the API/editors. Contributors never added it themselves.


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


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 27 May 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >
> > it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to
> > unconsciously perform automated edits could and should be blocked
> > from write access to the API and accordingly should not be
> > available on osm.org.
>
> I guess that in cases where it's a widely accepted community decision
> instead of "fuck you stinking mailing list pseudo community, I'll do
> what I please and anyway my friends all like it", it can be
> acceptable. AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by"
> and didn't hear anyone complain about that.

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

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

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

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

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

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

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Jo]

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

highway=bus_stop on nodes next to the highway

and

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

works just fine.

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

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

Polyglot

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:55 PM Dave F via talk 
wrote:

> On 27/05/2019 12:23, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform
> >
> > This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform
>
> Most of the public_transport=* tags are pure duplicates of existing,
> more popular tags. They add nothing to the OSM database except confusion
> & errors.
>
> Even the person who conceived the scheme admits it didn't work &
> recommending it be dropped.
>
> It's disappointing & frustrating to see the iD editor promote them with
> the inaccurate claim of "Some tags change over time and should be updated."
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Dave F via talk]

On 27/05/2019 12:23, Phil Wyatt wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform

This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform


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


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


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


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Mai 2019 um 15:23 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :

>   Occasionally there are examples of people
> accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally
> do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely
> explain why in this particular case the suggestion isn't a good one.



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




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



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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/05/2019 12:08, Jo wrote:

And the disease is spreading:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd

I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?

Suggestions about tag improvements by an editor are not a new thing - 
JOSM has had them for ages.  Occasionally there are examples of people 
accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally 
do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely 
explain why in this particular case the suggestion isn't a good one.  
You'd also need to ask the user whether they were prompted to make an 
"improvement" by the editor or whether they added it manually (speaking 
personally I'd usually draw railway platforms as areas and I can 
certainly think of places where I'd draw a linear footpath along as 
well).  The emphasis has to be on "politely" - users accepting an 
editor's suggestion can't be blamed if they don't know the backstory.


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


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


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


Best Regards,

Andy

(writing in an entirely personal capacity)

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




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

In case that this is an undesirable wrong tagging one may request JOSM dev
to add validator rule fixing this.

You may also propose worldwide bot edit reverting such changes.

(note, I am not sure whatever either is a good idea, it is one of reasons why I 
did neither)

27 May 2019, 13:08 by winfi...@gmail.com:

> And the disease is spreading:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd 
>
> I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Phil Wyatt]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform

 

This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Jo [mailto:winfi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 9:04 PM
To: Richard Fairhurst
Cc: OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

 

I went to check a platform tagged as

 

highway=platform

 

which is perfectly alright.

 

iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:

 

public_transport=platform

bus=yes

 

Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:

 

highway=footway

 

So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.

 

Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect, 
complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.

 

I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to listen to 
the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.

 

Oh well,

 

Back to JOSM for me.

 

Jo

 

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Jo]

And the disease is spreading:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd

I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?

Jo

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:03 PM Jo  wrote:

> I went to check a platform tagged as
>
> highway=platform
>
> which is perfectly alright.
>
> iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:
>
> public_transport=platform
> bus=yes
>
> Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:
>
> highway=footway
>
> So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.
>
> Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect,
> complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.
>
> I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to
> listen to the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.
>
> Oh well,
>
> Back to JOSM for me.
>
> Jo
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Hain wrote:
>> > Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
>> > Write a new online editor from scratch.
>> > Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.
>>
>> Please stop trolling.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from:
>> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Jo]

I went to check a platform tagged as

highway=platform

which is perfectly alright.

iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:

public_transport=platform
bus=yes

Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:

highway=footway

So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.

Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect,
complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.

I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to listen
to the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.

Oh well,

Back to JOSM for me.

Jo

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Andrew Hain wrote:
> > Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> > Write a new online editor from scratch.
> > Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.
>
> Please stop trolling.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 27 May 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
> had exactly 0 effect.
>
> As I see it we can choose between
>
> [...]

I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has.  
I in particular see:

* a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly 
what is being released without creating and maintaining a complete 
fork.
* a wide range of options for regulatory measures, not only on 
the 'developer behaviour regulation' front (which i have serious 
trouble with) but also on the technical level by requiring certain 
modularization so things like presets or validation rules can be easily 
replaced or disabled by deployments.

On a general note and w.r.t. what Markus wrote:

> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)
>: You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway
> to platforms. This is an automated edit.

it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to unconsciously 
perform automated edits could and should be blocked from write access 
to the API and accordingly should not be available on osm.org.  I don't 
know if iD in its current configuation does this but this seems so 
obvious and self evident as a principle that it is not even necessary 
to codify this into written policy IMO.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Phil Wyatt]

I cant see how a new team of developers would help - they would be operating
under the same rules (which I suspect are pretty vague) as all the current
developers. Who at the moment dictates which editors can be used at osm.org?
If they don't like ID, they can get it turned off.

 

If the ID editor is the most popular it's probably for a good reason - it's
easy to use for newbies and intermediate mappers.

 

If the tags are wrong, ambiguous, duplicated or poorly defined then I
suggest fix the tagging system first so it's clear for all developers.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Hain [mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 8:27 PM
To: Simon Poole; talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway
to railway/public_transport=platform

 

Also:

 

Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.

 

Write a new online editor from scratch.

 

Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

 

--

Andrew

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Wiklund Johan wrote:
> Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
> built 
> routing engines.

Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification?

OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's
multimodal and you can't do multimodal routing if you can't navigate the
platforms. Graphhopper does.

I could list about 20 editor tagging improvements that would make foot and
bike routing better, and this isn't one of them.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Andrew Hain]

Also:

Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.

Write a new online editor from scratch.

Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

--
Andrew

From: Simon Poole 
Sent: 27 May 2019 11:07
To: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.

As I see it we can choose between

- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)

- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)

- put in place a code of conduct for developers that want their code
deployed on osm.org and other OSMF sites with minimum requirements on
transparency and community interaction (the irony of this is not lost on
me, and it is not clear who would enforce this)

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

- engaging with the respective employers and ask them to rectify the
situation (obviously there's a big hole in this one)

That's probably about it.

Simon

Am 23.05.2019 um 18:11 schrieb Markus:
> Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
>
> I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
> (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
> here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
>
>> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
>> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.
> While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
> put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
> opinions.
>
>> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.
> So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
> i expect the iD developers to follow it.
>
> Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:
>
> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
> You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
> platforms. This is an automated edit.
> * Map what's on the ground
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
> A platform is not a footway.
> * Don't map for the renderer
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
> It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.
>
>> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
>> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
>> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
>> routable.
> If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
> then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
> the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
> I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
> Wikibase (data items).
>
> I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
> that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Simon Poole]

The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.

As I see it we can choose between

- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)

- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)

- put in place a code of conduct for developers that want their code
deployed on osm.org and other OSMF sites with minimum requirements on
transparency and community interaction (the irony of this is not lost on
me, and it is not clear who would enforce this)

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

- engaging with the respective employers and ask them to rectify the
situation (obviously there's a big hole in this one)

That's probably about it.

Simon

Am 23.05.2019 um 18:11 schrieb Markus:
> Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
>
> I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
> (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
> here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
>
>> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
>> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.
> While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
> put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
> opinions.
>
>> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.
> So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
> i expect the iD developers to follow it.
>
> Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:
>
> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
> You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
> platforms. This is an automated edit.
> * Map what's on the ground
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
> A platform is not a footway.
> * Don't map for the renderer
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
> It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.
>
>> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
>> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
>> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
>> routable.
> If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
> then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
> the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
> I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
> Wikibase (data items).
>
> I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
> that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Dave F via talk]

On 24/05/2019 10:41, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging 
rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster


Hi Phil

1) Even for newbies, common sense should tell you that railway=platforms 
are for the purpose of being walked on - it doesn't require a 
confirmation tag.


2) iD developers quincylvania & bhousel are *implying* when saying _all_ 
platforms should have this tag*:


"iD should add highway=footway automatically and recommend upgrading 
features lacking this tag."



* if a platform isn't accessible for some reason, an appropriate tag 
such as access=* or disused:* can be used


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Dave F via talk]

On 24/05/2019 09:27, Wiklund Johan wrote:

As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of 
Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly 
built routing engines.


Whole heartedly agree. There are far too many routers who can't be 
bothered to write code. The navigation of pedestrian areas being one 
example.


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:27 +, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the
> opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose
> but to please poorly built routing engines.

I concur


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Martin,

 

PS – Is a meadow ‘used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians’? I think not, 
likewise is a carpark ‘used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians’ – again I 
think not. If there is a well worn path through the meadow then yes, or if 
there are designated footways through the carpark then yes they should also be 
added…in my opinion.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 8:02 PM
To: Phil Wyatt
Cc: Wiklund Johan; Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

 

 

 

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil Wyatt :

Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging 
rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster

 

 

The problem is that a platform is not a footway, at least not universally. 
People can also walk over meadows, following this logics we should be 
suggesting to add highway=footway to all meadows? Or amenity=parking?

 

I agree, this should not become suggested tagging. 

 

It is so sad the issue has been closed in the github tracker because of too 
many people complaining (politely) about a developer decision. Closing issues 
because of disagreement is toxic behaviour and it is understandable it makes 
people worrying.

 

Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Lester]

On 24/05/2019 09:27, Wiklund Johan wrote:

As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of 
Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly 
built routing engines.


Same here ...
Routing for rail passengers should be handled correctly by the routing 
engine as it's separate from 'public right of access' and access to 
platforms is an additional area that requires management separate to 
simple public footpaths?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Martin,

 

So what are the explicit exceptions given the wiki says “Use  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport> 
public_transport=platform to identify the places where passengers board or 
alight from public transport of any type” which to me would also suggest that 
it’s a footway ( <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> 
highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are used mainly or 
exclusively by pedestrians).

 

Is there a tag that these exceptions have that can also be checked in the 
validation?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 8:02 PM
To: Phil Wyatt
Cc: Wiklund Johan; Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

 

 

 

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil Wyatt :

Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging 
rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster

 

 

The problem is that a platform is not a footway, at least not universally. 
People can also walk over meadows, following this logics we should be 
suggesting to add highway=footway to all meadows? Or amenity=parking?

 

I agree, this should not become suggested tagging. 

 

It is so sad the issue has been closed in the github tracker because of too 
many people complaining (politely) about a developer decision. Closing issues 
because of disagreement is toxic behaviour and it is understandable it makes 
people worrying.

 

Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil Wyatt :

> Hi Folks,
>
> As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging
> rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster



The problem is that a platform is not a footway, at least not universally.
People can also walk over meadows, following this logics we should be
suggesting to add highway=footway to all meadows? Or amenity=parking?

I agree, this should not become suggested tagging.

It is so sad the issue has been closed in the github tracker because of too
many people complaining (politely) about a developer decision. Closing
issues because of disagreement is toxic behaviour and it is understandable
it makes people worrying.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging 
rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Wiklund Johan [mailto:johan.wikl...@entur.org] 
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 6:28 PM
To: Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of 
Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly 
built routing engines.

Regards

Johan Wiklund
Data manager 
johan.wikl...@entur.org
www.entur.org


-Original Message-
From: Markus [mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com] 
Sent: torsdag 23. mai 2019 18.11
To: Talk 
Cc: Bryan Housel 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

Hello Bryan, hello everyone,

I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.

> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.

While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have put into 
iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other opinions.

> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.

So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority, i expect 
the iD developers to follow it.

Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:

* Automated Edits code of conduct
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to 
platforms. This is an automated edit.
* Map what's on the ground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
A platform is not a footway.
* Don't map for the renderer
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.

> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
> routable.

If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM, then it 
should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for the router. (By 
the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.) I guess it should also be 
possible to create a "routable" property for Wikibase (data items).

I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions that differ 
from yours and to listen more to the community.

Best regards

Markus

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Wiklund Johan]

As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of 
Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly 
built routing engines.

Regards

Johan Wiklund
Data manager 
johan.wikl...@entur.org
www.entur.org


-Original Message-
From: Markus [mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com] 
Sent: torsdag 23. mai 2019 18.11
To: Talk 
Cc: Bryan Housel 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

Hello Bryan, hello everyone,

I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.

> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.

While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have put into 
iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other opinions.

> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.

So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority, i expect 
the iD developers to follow it.

Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:

* Automated Edits code of conduct
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to 
platforms. This is an automated edit.
* Map what's on the ground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
A platform is not a footway.
* Don't map for the renderer
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.

> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
> routable.

If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM, then it 
should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for the router. (By 
the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.) I guess it should also be 
possible to create a "routable" property for Wikibase (data items).

I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions that differ 
from yours and to listen more to the community.

Best regards

Markus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Markus]

Hello Bryan, hello everyone,

I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.

> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.

While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
opinions.

> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.

So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
i expect the iD developers to follow it.

Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:

* Automated Edits code of conduct
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
platforms. This is an automated edit.
* Map what's on the ground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
A platform is not a footway.
* Don't map for the renderer
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.

> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
> routable.

If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
Wikibase (data items).

I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.

Best regards

Markus

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