Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
Tyler, On 10/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tyler Ritchie wrote: If we should continue to receive more complaints from or about the individuals named in this posting, we will respond by banning both accounts until they cool down. How are you going to notice whether or not they've cooled down if they're banned from editing? They would only be banned from editing OSM, not from communication. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to render highway shields in the US? Mapquest may be using relations to generate shields, but I have seen Interstate shields on Interstate highways with no relations, so relations aren't their only source for shields. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On 10/17/2010 04:23 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Tyler, > > On 10/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tyler Ritchie wrote: >> If we should continue to receive more complaints from or about the >> individuals named in this posting, we will respond by banning both >> accounts until they cool down. >> >> How are you going to notice whether or not they've cooled down if >> they're banned from editing? > > They would only be banned from editing OSM, not from communication. I can't help but to think the DWG is quick to blame the victim here for pointing out the problem in the first place. I don't consider this to be a healthy way to maintain OSM. If the DWG is unwilling or unable to mediate responsibly, we need a new DWG. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] State Route relations (was: Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns))
Nathan Edgars II writes: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Peter Budny wrote: >> Nathan Edgars II writes: >> >>> It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created relations to the >>> database >> >> You're not the first person to say this. You're also not the first >> person to fail to give a reason why it would be so terrible. > > It would be, quite literally, vandalism: adding information that you > know to be incorrect. Is incomplete information incorrect? If so, we've got an awful lot of human vandals. What makes you think human mappers get everything right all the time? I believe you're the one who added all the Florida state route relations... did you actually drive over every mile of road to verify it before adding it to the relation? Or did you look at the data on the map (name=, tiger:base_name=, ref=, etc) and create relations from that? -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] State Route relations (was: Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns))
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Peter Budny wrote: > Nathan Edgars II writes: >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Peter Budny wrote: >>> Nathan Edgars II writes: >>> It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created relations to the database >>> >>> You're not the first person to say this. You're also not the first >>> person to fail to give a reason why it would be so terrible. >> >> It would be, quite literally, vandalism: adding information that you >> know to be incorrect. > > Is incomplete information incorrect? If so, we've got an awful lot of > human vandals. No, but TIGER's main problem is not that it's incomplete. > > What makes you think human mappers get everything right all the time? I > believe you're the one who added all the Florida state route > relations... did you actually drive over every mile of road to verify it > before adding it to the relation? Or did you look at the data on the > map (name=, tiger:base_name=, ref=, etc) and create relations from that? I used various sources including personal observations and FDOT information. None of it came from TIGER. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
* Toby Murray [2010-10-16 20:56 -0500]: > Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to > render highway shields in the US? I've looked at their stylesheets, and they're not. They're just matching the "I" or "US" at the beginning of the ways' ref= tags. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation. I rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterward. -- Albert Einstein --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
AJ, I'm not disposing of IRC, frankly I use it myself. I'm just saying that there are downsides/upsides to both phone calls/email/IRC/IM/etc. My real point is that new people probably don't want to argue about tags in the first place. Many people come to mapping parties and say "what do you want me to map?" Or I've also heard 'I don't care to map anything in-particular, but I want to help out." If people really want to discuss tagging badly enough they will figure out whatever the form of communication is and deal with it. Key is coming out of that communication is a guide that others can use. -Kate On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Al Haraka wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: >> There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a >> phone call. All that aside though I think key is just to have some >> level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear >> place. >> >> New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know >> how to map. By making that easier and having standards documented in >> a clear way they will. >> >> -Kate > > Kate, I understand where you are going with this, but I think the wiki > is pretty clear on how low the barrier to entry can be if there is a > web-based IRC-client. > > http://irc.openstreetmap.org/ > > I personally dislike the idea of disposing of one avenue of > communication because of "barrier to entry." I would say in this case > it means the people in the channel or on the call care enough to put > in an effort. Either way, it costs time or money, regardless of the > choice. I personally prefer IRC only for the reason that it is easy > to document everything that is said and done with minimal effort. > Someone has to take notes on a phone call, and sometimes those notes > can be inadequate or inaccurate. That is my only reservation. Of > course, IRC has its own downsides. > > Whatever is decided, I welcome the idea of organizing. I too am very > concerned about knowing how to map, and I see this as a positive > development. Thanks to everyone for getting motivated about this. > >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees wrote: Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us. The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. It's not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and (most importantly) implements it. >>> >>> You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher >>> barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's >>> also relatively easy to use IRC, though you have to be free at the >>> proper time. It's a bit harder to participate in a phone conversation >>> - again you can't have anything else scheduled then, and you need >>> either a microphone or a willingness to pay for a long-distance call, >>> plus the ability to understand various accents (or half the meeting >>> will be "can you please repeat that? can you speak more clearly?"). >>> >>> ___ >>> Talk-us mailing list >>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >>> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Kate Chapman wrote: > AJ, > > I'm not disposing of IRC, frankly I use it myself. I'm just saying > that there are downsides/upsides to both phone calls/email/IRC/IM/etc. > My real point is that new people probably don't want to argue about > tags in the first place. Many people come to mapping parties and say > "what do you want me to map?" Or I've also heard 'I don't care to map > anything in-particular, but I want to help out." If people really > want to discuss tagging badly enough they will figure out whatever the > form of communication is and deal with it. Key is coming out of that > communication is a guide that others can use. > > -Kate I was playing devil's advocate to an extent. :-) Personally, I am of the opinion that if you want to talk about tagging bad enough, you will use whatever medium it takes to get the job done. I know I will. I welcome all calls/IRC chats, and will try to participate in whatever is set up, since I am one of the more novice people that desperately needs to better understand the tags. > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Al Haraka wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: >>> There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a >>> phone call. All that aside though I think key is just to have some >>> level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear >>> place. >>> >>> New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know >>> how to map. By making that easier and having standards documented in >>> a clear way they will. >>> >>> -Kate >> >> Kate, I understand where you are going with this, but I think the wiki >> is pretty clear on how low the barrier to entry can be if there is a >> web-based IRC-client. >> >> http://irc.openstreetmap.org/ >> >> I personally dislike the idea of disposing of one avenue of >> communication because of "barrier to entry." I would say in this case >> it means the people in the channel or on the call care enough to put >> in an effort. Either way, it costs time or money, regardless of the >> choice. I personally prefer IRC only for the reason that it is easy >> to document everything that is said and done with minimal effort. >> Someone has to take notes on a phone call, and sometimes those notes >> can be inadequate or inaccurate. That is my only reservation. Of >> course, IRC has its own downsides. >> >> Whatever is decided, I welcome the idea of organizing. I too am very >> concerned about knowing how to map, and I see this as a positive >> development. Thanks to everyone for getting motivated about this. >> >>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II >>> wrote: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the > mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more > people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us. > The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and > form > a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two > are > the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. > It's > not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and > (most importantly) implements it. You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's also relatively easy to use IRC, though you have to be free at the proper time. It's a bit harder to participate in a phone conversation - again you can't have anything else scheduled then, and you need either a microphone or a willingness to pay for a long-distance call, plus the ability to understand various accents (or half the meeting will be "can you please repeat that? can you speak more clearly?"). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >>> >>> ___ >>> Talk-us mailing list >>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >>> >> ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On 10/16/2010 06:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson > wrote: >> On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >>> So would you have no objection to my use of bicycle=avoid on roads >>> that have bike lanes? >> >> That would be ambiguous in most cases, and I believe you're being obtuse >> for the sake of being obtuse in this specific instance. > > I'm talking about the cases that are as objective as a subjective tag > can be: the lane has identifiable hazards. Often this would be a door > zone, like the one that killed Dana Laird. Or it could be one like I > linked above: > http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/09/23/i-watched-a-guy-get-hit-yesterday/ > Or it could simply be a sidepath with right-hook danger at every > driveway. OK, I take that back. If cycleway=lane doesn't have the best route, yes, a bicycle=avoid wouldn't be bad. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On 10/16/2010 06:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson >> wrote: >>> On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: So would you have no objection to my use of bicycle=avoid on roads that have bike lanes? >>> >>> That would be ambiguous in most cases, and I believe you're being obtuse >>> for the sake of being obtuse in this specific instance. >> >> I'm talking about the cases that are as objective as a subjective tag >> can be: the lane has identifiable hazards. Often this would be a door >> zone, like the one that killed Dana Laird. Or it could be one like I >> linked above: >> http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/09/23/i-watched-a-guy-get-hit-yesterday/ >> Or it could simply be a sidepath with right-hook danger at every >> driveway. > > OK, I take that back. If cycleway=lane doesn't have the best route, > yes, a bicycle=avoid wouldn't be bad. cycleway_hazard=door_zone would be better. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
