Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14989711

NE2 has ignored the discussion intentionally and reverted against consensus.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
>
>> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
>> Leave it there.
>>
>
> Done.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in
Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what
network they're a part of.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Wait, what?  It's clearly part of the same intersection.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
> >>
> >> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
> >> Leave it there.
> >
> >
> > Done.
> >
> Now put the split for the off-ramp at a point after the logical
> intersection. :)
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Anthony]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
>>
>> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
>> Leave it there.
>
>
> Done.
>
Now put the split for the off-ramp at a point after the logical intersection. :)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
> Leave it there.
>

Done.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

Paul Johnson writes:
 > Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's manual,
 > the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain it
 > still doesn't work.

Mercy, Jesus, Mary, Mother of God!! I can't believe we're arguing the
minutia of Florida traffic law here!

What is the conservative approach? What is least likely to get someone
a ticket or get them in an accident? What do most drivers do at this
intersection? There's no sign? But there are road markings.

Put the turn restriction back in. And NE2, if you're reading this?
Leave it there.

And Paul? For the love of God, stay out of Florida. Don't kick the
bear and then wonder why he's biting you.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Dale Puch]

"For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
also is, in total, harmful to the project."

Agreed.

NE2 may need to be banned, or may be valuable to OSM  It should not be
decided here, but by a formal procedure.

My insight in this from past discussions and interaction is that NE2 has to
be "beaten over the head with incontrovertible evidence" before he is
willing to back down.   The problem is he isn't offering similar evidence
to begin with, and refuses to give other users views similar weight to his
own.

Regarding the restriction in question.  As mentioned it would be illegal
based on not using the innermost lane, and crossing a solid traffic line.
Note that the on-ramp turn lane is the only one with a solid line from
where traffic has to stop.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bill R. WASHBURN wrote:

> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending NE2, one of Ian's points is
> that NE2 is banned from the list and that discussing this, here, does not
> allow ALL of the parties in the case to be involved in the discussion.
>
> One of the things that we need is a formal and transparent grievance
> process to correct poor behavior (and to build cases for banishment, when
> appropriate). In this case, it seems likely to me that the remediation
> process would have been resisted and the mediators, themselves, would have
> had their own case(s).
>
> For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
> and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
> NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
> be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
> situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
> also is, in total, harmful to the project.
>
> Add a side note, I actually do think that the idea of putting changeset
> approval processes in on new accounts and as a remediation measure in cases
> like NE2's is a fantastic idea. This would give the community an
> opportunity to prevent newbie mistakes from making it to the published map,
> correcting their newbie edit errors for a few edits until it's clear that
> they get the swing of things, and for sending rogue editors back to
> get-along-with-the-community school.
>
> Bill, aka dygituljunky
> On Feb 10, 2013 1:57 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>>
>>> If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact
>>> the mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so
>>> that it doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.
>>>
>>
>> Could we get the DWG in on this thread?  Enough members of this project
>> are involved in this issue that having this discussion in public where all
>> parties concerned can by a part of the discussion, or at least see the
>> thought process on the DWG's part, that it would be a disservice to hide
>> this in an ivory tower.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Dale Puch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Yes, because it also says not to change lanes.  Also, it says you can only
cross a solid lane line to avoid a hazard.  I'm seeing more ways to
interpret what's going on as not allowing the ramp-to-ramp movement than
those allowing it to the point where you'd pretty much have to be making
the argument for argument's sake (ie, NE2's MO) to not see this as obvious.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> So you read the part where it specifically says you can complete the
> turn using any lane lawfully available, and you're still holding that
> you have to complete the turn using the left-most lane?
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > The same one.  It also says to look at the diagram for examples, and
> shows
> > turns into the nearest available lane.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> >>
> >> Heh, by the way, I just looked at the 2012 Florida Driver's Handbook
> >> (page 32).  It explicitly says "A left turn may be completed in any
> >> lane lawfully available, or safe, for the desired direction of
> >> travel."
> >>
> >> I'm not sure which driver's manual you were looking at.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> >> > "You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in Florida,"  No.
> >> > While the broader point is arguable, what you said there is absolutely
> >> > wrong.
> >> >
> >> > "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection
> >> > shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully
> >> > available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such
> >> > vehicle, and, after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be
> >> > made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to
> >> > traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered."
> >> >
> >> > (
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.151.html
> )
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Paul Johnson 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's
> >> >> manual,
> >> >> the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain
> it
> >> >> still
> >> >> doesn't work.  You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in
> >> >> Florida,
> >> >> no lane changes permitted in the intersection.  You can only turn
> left
> >> >> into
> >> >> the farthest left lane without changing lanes in the intersection.
> >> >> It's on
> >> >> page 30 of the Florida driver's manual.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Russ Nelson 
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
> >> >>> traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then
> a
> >> >>> quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of
> traffic,
> >> >>> he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so
> it
> >> >>> seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he
> thinks
> >> >>> are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Paul Johnson writes:
> >> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there
> >> >>> preventing
> >> >>> a
> >> >>>  > straight-on movement?
> >> >>>  >
> >> >>>  >
> >> >>>  > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>  >
> >> >>>  > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600<
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600>
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > > richard
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > > __**_
> >> >>>  > > Talk-us mailing list
> >> >>>  > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> >> >>>  > >
> >> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn
> only
> >> >>> arrow there preventing a straight-on movement? >> >>> class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10,
> >> >>> 2013 at
> >> >>> 5:09 PM, Richard Welty < >> >>> href="mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net";
> >> >>> target="_blank">rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote:
> >> >>>  > NE2 asked me to
> >> >>> share this
> >> >>> diary entry with the list:
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  >  >> >>> href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600";
> >> >>>
> >> >>> target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/
> user/NE2/diary/18600 >> >>> class="HOEnZb">
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  > richard
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  > 
> >> >>>  > ___
> >> >>>  > Talk-us mailing list
> >> >>>  > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org";
> >> >>> target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >> >>>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us";
> >> >>>
> >>

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 18:22 -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
> The point behind turn restrictions is that a routing algorithm is
> going to be looking for them to create a route.

And I think this is enough reason that the turn restriction should stay;
I wouldn't want directions to include it and I doubt most of the users
would either. Remember, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

The same one.  It also says to look at the diagram for examples, and shows
turns into the nearest available lane.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> Heh, by the way, I just looked at the 2012 Florida Driver's Handbook
> (page 32).  It explicitly says "A left turn may be completed in any
> lane lawfully available, or safe, for the desired direction of
> travel."
>
> I'm not sure which driver's manual you were looking at.
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> > "You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in Florida,"  No.
> > While the broader point is arguable, what you said there is absolutely
> > wrong.
> >
> > "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection
> > shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully
> > available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such
> > vehicle, and, after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be
> > made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to
> > traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered."
> > (
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.151.html
> )
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> >> Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's
> manual,
> >> the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain it
> still
> >> doesn't work.  You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in
> Florida,
> >> no lane changes permitted in the intersection.  You can only turn left
> into
> >> the farthest left lane without changing lanes in the intersection.
>  It's on
> >> page 30 of the Florida driver's manual.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
> >>> traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then a
> >>> quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of traffic,
> >>> he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so it
> >>> seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.
> >>>
> >>> But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he thinks
> >>> are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?
> >>>
> >>> Paul Johnson writes:
> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there
> preventing
> >>> a
> >>>  > straight-on movement?
> >>>  >
> >>>  >
> >>>  > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty
> >>> wrote:
> >>>  >
> >>>  > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600<
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600>
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > richard
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > __**_
> >>>  > > Talk-us mailing list
> >>>  > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >>>  > >
> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only
> >>> arrow there preventing a straight-on movement? >>> class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10,
> 2013 at
> >>> 5:09 PM, Richard Welty < >>> href="mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net";
> >>> target="_blank">rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote:
> >>>  > NE2 asked me to
> share this
> >>> diary entry with the list:
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600";
> >>> target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/
> user/NE2/diary/18600 >>> class="HOEnZb">
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > richard
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > 
> >>>  > ___
> >>>  > Talk-us mailing list
> >>>  > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org";
> >>> target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >>>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us";
> >>> target="_blank">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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

Looking through the "making turns" section of the Florida driver's manual,
the maneuver NE2 proposes and the argument you're giving to explain it
still doesn't work.  You turn into the corresponding lane after a turn in
Florida, no lane changes permitted in the intersection.  You can only turn
left into the farthest left lane without changing lanes in the
intersection.  It's on page 30 of the Florida driver's manual.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
> traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then a
> quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of traffic,
> he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so it
> seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.
>
> But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he thinks
> are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?
>
> Paul Johnson writes:
>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing
> a
>  > straight-on movement?
>  >
>  >
>  > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty  >wrote:
>  >
>  > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
>  > >
>  > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600<
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600>
>  > >
>  > > richard
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > __**_
>  > > Talk-us mailing list
>  > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>  > > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>  > >
>  > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only
> arrow there preventing a straight-on movement? class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10, 2013
> at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty 
> wrote:
>  > NE2 asked me to share
> this diary entry with the list:
>  > 
>  > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600";
> target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600 class="HOEnZb">
>  > 
>  > richard
>  > 
>  > 
>  > ___
>  > Talk-us mailing list
>  > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org"; target="_blank">
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us";
> target="_blank">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
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

I think that what he would say to the judge, when defending his
traffic ticket in court, was that he *did* make a left ... and then a
quick right. Since at no time did he move against the flow of traffic,
he might prevail. There's a traffic light at that intersection, so it
seems safe enough, if a bit unconventional.

But isn't that our beef with NE2? That he makes edits which he thinks
are obvious, but which we think are unconventional?

Paul Johnson writes:
 > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing a
 > straight-on movement?
 > 
 > 
 > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
 > 
 > > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
 > >
 > > 
 > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600
 > >
 > > richard
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > __**_
 > > Talk-us mailing list
 > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 > > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
 > >
 > So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow 
 > there preventing a straight-on movement? class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 
 > 5:09 PM, Richard Welty < href="mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net"; 
 > target="_blank">rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote:
 > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the 
 > list:
 > 
 >             http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600"; 
 > target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600  class="HOEnZb">
 > 
 > richard
 > 
 > 
 > ___
 > Talk-us mailing list
 > mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org"; 
 > target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us"; 
 > target="_blank">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] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

The question isn't whether or not it's popular.  It's popular to drive the
wrong way on one-way streets or left of the centerlines in Portland.  But
that doesn't make it legal.


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:21 PM, James Mast wrote:

>  Well, if you do look at the imagery, it seems that's a popular moment to
> go straight there from ramp to ramp.  There are several tire marks proving
> people do it a lot.
>
> --James
>
> --
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:12:15 -0600
> From: ba...@ursamundi.org
>
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
>
> So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing a
> straight-on movement?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
> NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
>
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600
>
> richard
>
>
>
> __**_
> 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] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

Richard Welty writes:
 > NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
 > 
 >  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600

That's interesting, but I'll note three things:
  o the tire tracks with one exception turn left, and
  o the one set of tire tracks that goes "left"-right was left by a
car skidding its tires, implying that the movement was done
surreptitiously, in haste.
  o There are fewer things you can do when a policeman is watching
than not.

The point behind turn restrictions is that a routing algorithm is
going to be looking for them to create a route. While it's fine that
NE2 is willing to make that turn on a lazy Sunday, would he send his
mother that way?

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Mike N]

On 2/10/2013 6:12 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing
a straight-on movement?


 I would just observe that the red line can be seen as a large version 
of the white left turn arrow above it.(Other than that, no opinion).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[James Mast]

> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:51:43 -0500
> From: dygitulju...@gmail.com
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
> 
> > At the risk of sounding like I'm defending NE2, one of Ian's points is that 
> > NE2 is banned from the list and that discussing this, here, does not allow 
> > ALL of the parties in the case to be involved in the discussion.

> One of the things that we need is a formal and transparent grievance process 
> to correct poor behavior (and to build cases for banishment, when 
> appropriate). In this case, it seems likely to me that the remediation 
> process would have been resisted and the mediators, themselves, would > have 
> had their own case(s).

> For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process, and 
> for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action, NE2 
> must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must be able 
> to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present situation isn't 
> fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation also is, in total, 
> harmful to the project.

 I'll second this.  If you want to ban somebody in this project, you should t 
least give them a chance to defend themselves.  This isn't a guy posting porn 
on a forum visited by children (who should always be banned).  He is doing 
useful edits.  In fact, as of late, he's been doing a lot of work twinning 
highways that need it in Florida.  We don't have as enough people as we need to 
get all highways that are divided twinned here in the USA. --James 
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

So he's conveniently ignoring the left turn only arrow there preventing a
straight-on movement?


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

> NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:
>
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/NE2/diary/18600
>
> richard
>
>
>
> __**_
> 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] Turn restriction dispute

[Richard Welty]

NE2 asked me to share this diary entry with the list:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/diary/18600

richard


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] User pxptyrone's edits

[andrzej zaborowski]

Hi John,

On 29 January 2013 03:21, the Old Topo Depot  wrote:
> Message sent to user via osm messaging

Have you had any success communicating with pxptyrone?

If not then I think it makes sense to undelete the objects and tags
that were removed by this user.  Some of it was apparently imported
data, but a lot was user contributed or enhanced with local knowledge.

pxptyrone has 39 changesets altogether and his last 35 changesets
consist of removals, some changesets containing 1000s of objects.

Cheers

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Bill R. WASHBURN]

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending NE2, one of Ian's points is that
NE2 is banned from the list and that discussing this, here, does not allow
ALL of the parties in the case to be involved in the discussion.

One of the things that we need is a formal and transparent grievance
process to correct poor behavior (and to build cases for banishment, when
appropriate). In this case, it seems likely to me that the remediation
process would have been resisted and the mediators, themselves, would have
had their own case(s).

For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
also is, in total, harmful to the project.

Add a side note, I actually do think that the idea of putting changeset
approval processes in on new accounts and as a remediation measure in cases
like NE2's is a fantastic idea. This would give the community an
opportunity to prevent newbie mistakes from making it to the published map,
correcting their newbie edit errors for a few edits until it's clear that
they get the swing of things, and for sending rogue editors back to
get-along-with-the-community school.

Bill, aka dygituljunky
On Feb 10, 2013 1:57 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
>> If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact the
>> mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so that it
>> doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.
>>
>
> Could we get the DWG in on this thread?  Enough members of this project
> are involved in this issue that having this discussion in public where all
> parties concerned can by a part of the discussion, or at least see the
> thought process on the DWG's part, that it would be a disservice to hide
> this in an ivory tower.
>
> ___
> 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] Turn restriction dispute

[Nathan Mills]

On 2/10/2013 10:32 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:

So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
because of him. How many other people have made the same decision? How
much worse is OSM because of NE2? Does this outweigh his positive
accomplishments?


I don't think I'm the only person who decided to basically stop 
contributing and do other things that don't involve butting heads with 
people who think they know ground truth better than people who have 
actually been there.


-Nathan

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact the
> mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so that it
> doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.
>

Could we get the DWG in on this thread?  Enough members of this project are
involved in this issue that having this discussion in public where all
parties concerned can by a part of the discussion, or at least see the
thought process on the DWG's part, that it would be a disservice to hide
this in an ivory tower.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
> people. For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
> work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
> pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
> I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.
>

Which was the thrust of my interaction in private messaging that I was
trying to get at when I referenced a vacuum.  "Never argue with a fool, for
they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."  NE2
is demonstrably quite experienced at that.


> So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
> because of him. How many other people have made the same decision?
>

I know I have, particularly since I returned to Oklahoma and now spent far
more time collecting GPX tracks and bugfixing than actively editing just
due to the level of effort required.

How much worse is OSM because of NE2? Does this outweigh his positive
> accomplishments?
>

We'll never know on the former, but I think the Archives will hear me out
when I say we're wasting some *serious* man-hours debating this issue once
a quarter.  Any other organization other than, perhaps, some rather poorly
run fandom conventions, would have ditched him a while ago now.  Honestly,
the only other way I can think of to handle such a situation is going to a
more Google Maps style verified edits model where Someone Else has to
"second" every edit anybody makes.  I highly doubt we want to do that
simply to keep a single contributor involved.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.
>
> NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
> well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
> only his) vision of the world.
>

There's still a lot of ways incorrectly tagged trunk from when he carried
out such a threat to mass-retag everything in route=road; network=US:US as
trunk (even when the vast majority of these aren't expressways, even if
they are the primary route).


> Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
> has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
> particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
> explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
> OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
> his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
> damned) is just unacceptable.
>

And given that this situation hasn't changed over time, I believe this will
continue to be the case indefinitely.  The ball is in our court.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Ian Dees]

Hi all,

This thread is getting unproductive and crossing into personal attacks.
Please consider if talk-us is the best place to talk about one person
behind essentially behind their back.

If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact the
mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so that it
doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.

Remember that there are lots of people that get these messages and what
might appear as defense of the project to the vocal minority might look
extreme and intimidating to the quiet majority that want to participate.

-Ian (as a talk-us moderator)


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
>
> > His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
> > people.
>
> Furthermore, he makes mass edits. There are not edits that one can
> accomplish simply by hand. He is doing many thousands of edits, and we
> have evidence that this must be automated. He ignores local mappers,
> local edits, and insists that he's right (with edits) even when told
> by on the ground mappers that he's wrong).
>
> So what we have is someone running around, bullying the mappers, and
> running bots on the system.
>
> > For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
> > work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
> > pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
> > I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.
>
> > So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
> > because of him. How many other people have made the same decision?
>
> From my interactions with mappers, more than a few.
>
> And these are just the mappers who have talked to me about it.
>
> > How much worse is OSM because of NE2?
>
> Have people here read The No Asshole Rule? In this book, the author
> outlines how bad behavior (bullying especially) is not neutral, but
> had major negative impacts on workplaces.
>
> NE2 is a bully, plain and simple, and his impacts are felt throughout
> the community.
>
> To answer others questions, we have banned others, mostly temporarily.
> It is an extreme action that the community has taken in order to bring
> the seriousness of a situation to light.
>
> In my view, those who are the defending NE2 the most are the ones who
> have dealt with him the least.
>
> OSM should not be Mad Max, or a cowboy environment, and by allowing
> "assholes" to be allowed to bully communities, we are making the
> problem worse.
>
> - Serge
>
> ___
> 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] Turn restriction dispute

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
> people.

Furthermore, he makes mass edits. There are not edits that one can
accomplish simply by hand. He is doing many thousands of edits, and we
have evidence that this must be automated. He ignores local mappers,
local edits, and insists that he's right (with edits) even when told
by on the ground mappers that he's wrong).

So what we have is someone running around, bullying the mappers, and
running bots on the system.

> For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
> work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
> pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
> I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.

> So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
> because of him. How many other people have made the same decision?

>From my interactions with mappers, more than a few.

And these are just the mappers who have talked to me about it.

> How much worse is OSM because of NE2?

Have people here read The No Asshole Rule? In this book, the author
outlines how bad behavior (bullying especially) is not neutral, but
had major negative impacts on workplaces.

NE2 is a bully, plain and simple, and his impacts are felt throughout
the community.

To answer others questions, we have banned others, mostly temporarily.
It is an extreme action that the community has taken in order to bring
the seriousness of a situation to light.

In my view, those who are the defending NE2 the most are the ones who
have dealt with him the least.

OSM should not be Mad Max, or a cowboy environment, and by allowing
"assholes" to be allowed to bully communities, we are making the
problem worse.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Russ Nelson]

Michal Migurski writes:
 > I'm familiar with his work and have run afoul of his views in the
 > past, most recently when I performed a large scale edit to US route
 > relation tags, some of which he did not agree with. I don't know if
 > any were reverted. Nevertheless, I don't see the value in running
 > him out on a rail without more actual evidence of malice, detailed
 > precedents from other bans, and some expectation that the OSMF
 > could help here. These days I'm happier with NE2 than I am with the
 > foundation, believe it or not.

His malice is encapsulated in his inability to work with other
people. For example, I dislike a particular global modification to my
work that he has made. I know that he has more spare time than me to
pursue his ideas, and so I haven't bothered to fighting on it, because
I know he will fight me, and I know he will win.

So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse
because of him. How many other people have made the same decision? How
much worse is OSM because of NE2? Does this outweigh his positive
accomplishments?

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Anthony]

I would suggest inviting him back on the mailing lists, with the
knowledge that being banned from the mailing lists means being banned
from OSM.

This situation where he is allowed to edit, but he isn't allowed to
join the mailing lists to discuss his edits, is an utter failure.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:30 AM, stevea  wrote:
> Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or
> even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is "be civil" and
> "use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss."  There are
> plenty of other "consensus understandings" that might be loosely called
> "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again
> proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.
> Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of
> permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior
> can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually being
> permanently banned.  He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I
> am not optimistic he will be around much longer.  But if the community wants
> him, that can emerge as a consensus as well.
>
> His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the
> usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy,
> which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that reason
> alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to ban
> him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we need
> somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult contributors.
> I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least.
>
> I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
>
>> He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
>> him to discuss this issue here.
>>
>> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
>> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
>> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
>> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
>> he were gone.
>>
>> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
>> -russ

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Randal Hale]

+ 4 to what Mike said. What is the precedent from other bans? Is there a 
wiki page of bannination?


Randy

Randal Hale, GISP
North River Geographic Systems, Inc
http://www.northrivergeographic.com
423.653.3611 rjh...@northrivergeographic.com
twitter:rjhale
http://about.me/rjhale

On 02/10/2013 11:04 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:

I'm familiar with his work and have run afoul of his views in the past, most 
recently when I performed a large scale edit to US route relation tags, some of 
which he did not agree with. I don't know if any were reverted. Nevertheless, I 
don't see the value in running him out on a rail without more actual evidence 
of malice, detailed precedents from other bans, and some expectation that the 
OSMF could help here. These days I'm happier with NE2 than I am with the 
foundation, believe it or not.

-mike.

---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com

On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski  wrote:

I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.

Mike,

Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.

NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
only his) vision of the world.

I realize that from a numerical standpoint, it may seem like he is a
positive contributor, but this is due to our general acceptance of
people even in the face of disagreement. But in NE2's case, he is a
bully, and having a bully does not serve the community well.

Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
damned) is just unacceptable.

It's understandable that if you are not familiar with NE2's behavior
first hand, that you would see this as a a misunderstanding, but NE2's
behavior has been damaging to the project for so long that we simply
have no choice but to take actions to protect the project's
cohesiveness.

- Serge

___
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] Turn restriction dispute

[Michal Migurski]

I'm familiar with his work and have run afoul of his views in the past, most 
recently when I performed a large scale edit to US route relation tags, some of 
which he did not agree with. I don't know if any were reverted. Nevertheless, I 
don't see the value in running him out on a rail without more actual evidence 
of malice, detailed precedents from other bans, and some expectation that the 
OSMF could help here. These days I'm happier with NE2 than I am with the 
foundation, believe it or not. 

-mike.

---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com

On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski  wrote:
>> I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
>> valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
>> like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.
> 
> NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
> well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
> only his) vision of the world.
> 
> I realize that from a numerical standpoint, it may seem like he is a
> positive contributor, but this is due to our general acceptance of
> people even in the face of disagreement. But in NE2's case, he is a
> bully, and having a bully does not serve the community well.
> 
> Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
> has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
> particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
> explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
> OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
> his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
> damned) is just unacceptable.
> 
> It's understandable that if you are not familiar with NE2's behavior
> first hand, that you would see this as a a misunderstanding, but NE2's
> behavior has been damaging to the project for so long that we simply
> have no choice but to take actions to protect the project's
> cohesiveness.
> 
> - Serge
> 
> ___
> 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] Turn restriction dispute

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski  wrote:
> I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
> valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
> like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.

Mike,

Your information on NE2 is grossly inaccurate.

NE2 makes very few positive edits, and many, many destructive ones, as
well as previous threats to make more edits that conform with his (and
only his) vision of the world.

I realize that from a numerical standpoint, it may seem like he is a
positive contributor, but this is due to our general acceptance of
people even in the face of disagreement. But in NE2's case, he is a
bully, and having a bully does not serve the community well.

Regarding precedent, this would not be the first person that the OSMF
has had to take action on. Others have been banned, but NE2's
particular brand of edit has always ridden the line, as he's not
explicitly doing anything illegal (ie not copyright violation). But
OSM is not his personal playground, and his view that this project is
his sandbox to impose his will on (reality and community consensus be
damned) is just unacceptable.

It's understandable that if you are not familiar with NE2's behavior
first hand, that you would see this as a a misunderstanding, but NE2's
behavior has been damaging to the project for so long that we simply
have no choice but to take actions to protect the project's
cohesiveness.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Serge Wroclawski]

This issue has come up before and the problem is that it "falls
through the cracks" of OSM's governing bodies.

The DWG often handles issues of vandalism or copyright violation, but
NE2's edits are neither obvious vandalism, nor direct copyright
violations as far as anyone can tell.

But this type of behavior has been identified as damaging to the
community on numerous occasions and in several ways.

The issue here is that unlike others, NE2's behavior always rides a
more delicate line.

Nonetheless, I think it's time we step up as a community and request
OSMF assistance on this issue.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Richard Welty]

On 2/10/13 8:56 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:

I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
like this, and I'm not eager to see one set.

i'm with mike. while i, like many, have butted heads with NE2 in the 
past and no doubt will
do so in the future, he has made a lot of valuable contributions. in 
this particular case,
the turn restriction has a direct bearing on routing and so fits in with 
something he has

been working hard at.

his main weaknesses are twofold:

1) he armchair maps a lot and doesn't play well with local mappers

2) related to the latter, he seems to be fairly antisocial in his 
interactions

with others in the community. the oft impersonal nature of email
doesn't help much with this.

he has gotten better over the past several years, but i suspect he still
doesn't really connect to the rest of us as people rather than usernames
and handles. i find myself wishing he would attend an SOTM US or something
like that, not because of the talks, but for the opportunity to sit down
with a bunch of committed mappers over a couple of beers.

the issue of any sort of temporary or permanent ban defaults, i believe,
in the hands of the DWG (Data Working Group), and i understand that
they haven't really ever been given a clear cut case in one of these 
disputes.


richard


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Michal Migurski]

I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously 
valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user 
like this, and I'm not eager to see one set. 

-mike.

---
michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com

On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:30 PM, stevea  wrote:

> Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or 
> even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is "be civil" and "use 
> the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss."  There are 
> plenty of other "consensus understandings" that might be loosely called 
> "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again proven 
> that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.  Consequently, I 
> think we should inform him that serious discussion of permanently banning him 
> from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior can either change for 
> the better, or he can count on eventually being permanently banned.  He has 
> had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I am not optimistic he will be 
> around much longer.  But if the community wants him, that can emerge as a 
> consensus as well.
> 
> His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the 
> usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy, which 
> is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that reason alone 
> (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to ban him, speak 
> up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we need somebody like 
> him as an example of what to do with difficult contributors.  I think it is 
> unanimous that he is that, at least.
> 
> I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.
> 
> SteveA
> California
> 
> 
>> He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
>> him to discuss this issue here.
>> 
>> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
>> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
>> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
>> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
>> he were gone.
>> 
>> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
>> -russ
> 
> ___
> 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] Turn restriction dispute

[Kathleen Danielson]

Out of curiosity, is asking someone to leave the project something that we
have done before? I'm wondering what kind of precedents we've set for
ourself. I am only vaguely familiar with the circumstances around this user
being removed from the list, so I'm curious about the decision to ban
someone from the list while still allowing him or her to make edits, even
though they can no longer participate in public discourse. I'm certainly
not trying to suggest that it was the "wrong" decision, just mentioning my
curiosity.
On Feb 10, 2013 12:31 AM, "stevea"  wrote:

> Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or
> even that I am able to offer it.  What I AM able to do is "be civil" and
> "use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss."  There
> are plenty of other "consensus understandings" that might be loosely called
> "rules" which make up the fabric of OSM as a community.  NE2 has again
> proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those.
>  Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of
> permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his
> behavior can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually
> being permanently banned.  He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and
> so I am not optimistic he will be around much longer.  But if the community
> wants him, that can emerge as a consensus as well.
>
> His "better" (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the
> usual messes he makes.  He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy,
> which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that
> reason alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to
> ban him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we
> need somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult
> contributors.  I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least.
>
> I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
>  He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect
>> him to discuss this issue here.
>>
>> We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past,
>> which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a
>> lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no,
>> some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if
>> he were gone.
>>
>> I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave.
>> -russ
>>
>
> __**_
> 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] Changeset 14828923 review

[Peter Dobratz]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, stevea  wrote:

> **
> ...
>
Marsland Street (way 12700863) has many extraneous tags which are nonsense
> and can/should be removed:  access, area, bridge, cutting, embankment,
> junction, oneway and tunnel, if not more. ...
>

I believe the presence of all these tags is the user clicking through all
the tabs in Potlatch2 and filling changing them from "unset" to whatever
seems to make sense for them.  By convention, we know that streets are
assumed to be two-way and there is no need to add the oneway=no tag, but
now that I look at P2, there's no indication of this and even if you jump
to the wiki, it doesn't really give any suggestion to omit the oneway tag
for two-way streets.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway

For access restrictions, there's this complicated page which lists defaults
values by country.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_States_of_America

I wouldn't expect a new mapper to know that.

I can't honestly decide if this is a real noob (no offense to noobs, I
> enjoy helping noobs...) or somebody bent on subtle but foolish vandalism.
> ...
>
>
I'd lean toward a new mapper that needs guidance here.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us