Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
This discussion seems to have ended. Is it time to play spot the consensus yet? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion seems to have ended. Is it time to play spot the consensus yet? I've spotted the consensus. Stop your bickering. Either come to an agreement about this tagging, or ignore each other, but absolutely stop picking on each other. If you edit-war with each other again you should both be banned. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion seems to have ended. Is it time to play spot the consensus yet? I've spotted the consensus. Stop your bickering. Either come to an agreement about this tagging, or ignore each other, but absolutely stop picking on each other. You and Frederick seem to be the only ones with that view who contributed to this thread. Do you have your mail client set to ignore the others? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
I agree with Richard but I don't want to feed the trolls by responding (which is the policy of several other mailing list readers I know). On Oct 21, 2010 4:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion seems to have ended. Is it time to play spot the consensus yet? I've spotted the consensus. Stop your bickering. Either come to an agreement about this tagging, or ignore each other, but absolutely stop picking on each other. You and Frederick seem to be the only ones with that view who contributed to this thread. Do you have your mail client set to ignore the others? ___ 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 Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Richard but I don't want to feed the trolls by responding (which is the policy of several other mailing list readers I know). I'm not sure what the point of this thread was then. All I got from it was: *If I ever get bored with OSM I can go out with a bang and take Paul with me *Apparently I don't really believe I'm correct, and the reason I edit warred was trolling (?) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Ah what the hell I'm sitting around at an airport with extra troll food... Nathan, you said yourself that you only edit-warred because you were trying to get the foundation's attention. I would call that trolling, yes. I guess that came out wrong - I believed and still believe my edits to be correct; the reason I edit-warred rather than pursuing another method of dispute resolution was that no other such method seems to exist. Map what's on the ground and quit bickering. I find it amusing that you say this when the whole argument is over Paul's mapping of something that's not only not on the ground but disputed. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
Hi, Nathan Edgars II wrote: This discussion seems to have ended. Is it time to play spot the consensus yet? We have discussed the issue and decided that: 1. We would prefer if both parties could behave like grown-ups, amicably resolve the matter (or at least find a compromise that both can live with), document their resolution on the list, and proceed to let OSM flourish. We believe that this is not impossible, indeed it is what most others in OSM do all the time. 2. In the absence of such amicable resolution, we will ban any party continuing or provoking an edit war. For the avoidance of doubt, any edit made by either party to an object previously edited by the other party is extremely likely to result in a ban. 3. We will not be drawn into further discussion about this. Edit wars are not an acceptable means of settling a dispute *even* if one is right. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
+1 On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Ian Dees wrote: I agree with Richard but I don't want to feed the trolls by responding (which is the policy of several other mailing list readers I know). On Oct 21, 2010 4:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion seems to have ended. Is it time to play spot the consensus yet? I've spotted the consensus. Stop your bickering. Either come to an agreement about this tagging, or ignore each other, but absolutely stop picking on each other. You and Frederick seem to be the only ones with that view who contributed to this thread. Do you have your mail client set to ignore the others? ___ 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 Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 3. We will not be drawn into further discussion about this. Edit wars are not an acceptable means of settling a dispute *even* if one is right. What would have been the correct means of settling the dispute then? I tried talking to Blackadder, one of the people listed on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes, and he said Eventually you will hopefully reach consensus, if not and it becomes a dispute I can help you and the other party(s) to resolve the issue amicably. Where was this help? Was I misadvised? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
I've spotted the consensus. Stop your bickering. Either come to an agreement about this tagging, or ignore each other, but absolutely stop picking on each other. You and Frederick seem to be the only ones with that view who contributed to this thread. As Ian said, the rest of us just haven't been stirring the pot. I agree with Richard and Ian. While I like the Wikipedia concept of be bold in editing, we don't need edit wars. I personally have been a contentious troll myself at times, and I find I need to back off, take a breather, and chill out some. I think both of you would benefit likewise, and OSM would be better off. - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
i'm with Richard as well. richard On 10/21/10 5:16 PM, Ian Dees wrote: I agree with Richard but I don't want to feed the trolls by responding (which is the policy of several other mailing list readers I know). On Oct 21, 2010 4:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com mailto:rich...@weait.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion seems to have ended. Is it time to play spot the consensus yet? I've spotted the consensus. Stop your bickering. Either come to an agreement about this tagging, or ignore each other, but absolutely stop picking on each other. You and Frederick seem to be the only ones with that view who contributed to this thread. Do you have your mail client set to ignore the others? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org mailto: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
Hi, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 3. We will not be drawn into further discussion about this. Edit wars are not an acceptable means of settling a dispute *even* if one is right. What would have been the correct means of settling the dispute then? I tried talking to Blackadder, one of the people listed on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes, and he said Eventually you will hopefully reach consensus, if not and it becomes a dispute I can help you and the other party(s) to resolve the issue amicably. Where was this help? Was I misadvised? We have very limited resources that we can deploy to conflict resolution, and we have to allocate them wisely. The matter you are quarrelling about is of negligible relevance to the project as a whole and nobody can honestly expect us to deal with it in detail from a distance. When Blackadder advised you of the general course of such things, he had probably not understood the non-scale of this issue. I suggest that you ignore Paul's tagging as long as he uses it in his local area. If you can't manage to do that, maybe try a Yoga class. Cool down. Paul's tagging sure is quirky but who knows, sometimes these quirky things lead to something cool built on top of them. If not, then they will die out by themselves. No need for you to police Paul's harmless edits *even* *if* *they* *should* *be* *wrong*. Do you know the saying the wiser head gives in? This is the very last comment I'll make on this issue because it becomes hard for me to remain polite. The next thing either of you is going to read from me is the ban message if you continue your edit war. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I suggest that you ignore Paul's tagging as long as he uses it in his local area. If you can't manage to do that, maybe try a Yoga class. Cool down. Paul's tagging sure is quirky but who knows, sometimes these quirky things lead to something cool built on top of them. If not, then they will die out by themselves. No need for you to police Paul's harmless edits *even* *if* *they* *should* *be* *wrong*. Do you know the saying the wiser head gives in? +1 there is so much to do in US. absolute no need to fight anyones edit as long as they don't break things ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote: On the other hand no renderer or other data user I've heard of is being negatively affected by the presence of bicycle=avoid so perhaps it doesn't matter. I don't know if he's had any success, but Paul has attempted to get mkgmap and possibly other routers to support it: http://www.mail-archive.com/mkgmap-...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk/msg06747.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote: On the other hand no renderer or other data user I've heard of is being negatively affected by the presence of bicycle=avoid so perhaps it doesn't matter. It seems dangerous to use an access tag for something other than legal permission. A tag like bicycle_avoid=yes would be easier to ignore. A router very well might treat unknown bicycle=* tags as equivalent to bicycle=no. Still better than bicycle_avoid=yes would be a tag like there_is_a_bicycle_route_nearby=yes, as at least then the tag would be objective and verifiable. And, of course, best of all would be no tag. The router already knows there is a bicycle route nearby. If a router wants to preferably route bicycles via bicycle routes when they are not too far out of the way, the best place to do that is in the routing software, not to have mappers hand-calculate best routes whenever bicycle routes appear or disappear. Of course, if Paul does decide to use there_is_a_bicycle_route_nearby=yes, I suppose it would be vandalism to remove it, right Nathan? ;) If it is truly illegal to ride a bike on the specified way unless it is necessary to get to your destination, then bicycle=destination is the appropriate tag. What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag implicit laws? However, like Greg, I've never heard of this situation. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. Some states have laws banning the use of bicycles on a road when there is an adjacent/nearby (*) cycleway. But there is a dispute between Nathan and Paul as to whether or not such a law applies in certain specific situations. (How close must the cycleway be?) I believe in this case that Nathan is probably correct, but none of us are lawyers, and it's hard to say definitively. This actually brings up a major problem with trying to map implicit restrictions, as opposed to only mapping explicit restrictions. (*) The exact terminology varies. I'm not sure exactly what the law in question says, but I remember that it's somewhat ambiguous. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag implicit laws? Yes, we tag implicit speed limits (along with a source:maxspeed or whatever). But there is a dispute between Nathan and Paul as to whether or not such a law applies in certain specific situations. (How close must the cycleway be?) I believe in this case that Nathan is probably correct, but none of us are lawyers, and it's hard to say definitively. This is why I asked Portland's Bicycle Transportation Alliance, which agreed that there is no requirement to use a bike route rather than a parallel street. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag implicit laws? Yes, we tag implicit speed limits (along with a source:maxspeed or whatever). If there is a consensus, I'd suggest you fix the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maxspeed) where it says that the following 'Tips' are highly disputed in the community. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag implicit laws? Yes, we tag implicit speed limits (along with a source:maxspeed or whatever). If there is a consensus, I'd suggest you fix the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maxspeed) where it says that the following 'Tips' are highly disputed in the community. I think the dispute is over *how* to tag them, not whether to tag them. But this is pretty irrelevant to the current dispute, since it's partly about whether there is a restriction in the first place. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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] 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] 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 baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org 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 ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On 10/16/2010 06:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org 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
[Talk-us] Request for community mediation
Dear talk-us list, we - the Data Working Group - have an issue that we hope you can help us resolve. There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past, used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring residential roads as bicycle=destination which probably stretches the meaning of the concept, and might, if there is indeed a local law saying you must use cycle routes, even be redundant. Recently, Paul has also started tagging some highways as bicycle=avoid on the grounds of them being large and there not being a cycleway - again something that other mappers might consider unnecessary. While this might be considered slightly eccentric tagging by some, it can hardly be considered harmful, and Paul seems to restrict this tagging to his local area. In OSM, we're usually happy if someone cares for their area, and we certainly allow them some liberties in shaping OSM for their area. There is another person in the US community - Nathan Edgars II a.k.a. NE2 - who seems to have made it a mission to fight the kind of slightly eccentric tagging that Paul uses. While Nathan is most active in his local area, every now and then he reverts large parts of Paul's work, 2,500 miles away, claiming, in is changeset comments, that he was removing bogus tags. We have tried to calm down both parties by suggesting to Paul that he stick to tagging that is clearly verifiable and offer proof where challenged; and by asking Nathan to consider sticking to his local area instead of feeling responsible for fixing tags on the other side of the country. But ultimately, this is a conflict between two individuals and their idea of how OSM should work. The Data Working Group has been dragged into this by multiple complaints, and in principle conflict mediation does fall within its remit but we feel that issues such as this should be debated on the lists, and that the community should reach a consensus on how to deal with such situations. If there is community consensus, the Data Working Group will certainly help enforce it, but we don't feel that we should be the judge and jury in this. 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. Thank you Frederik Ramm for the Data Working Group ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past, used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring residential roads as bicycle=destination which probably stretches the meaning of the concept, and might, if there is indeed a local law saying you must use cycle routes, even be redundant. There is no such law in Oregon, despite Paul's claims to the contrary. The only such law is that if there's an adjacent facility (like a sidepath) you can't ride on the road right next to it. Recently, Paul has also started tagging some highways as bicycle=avoid on the grounds of them being large and there not being a cycleway - again something that other mappers might consider unnecessary. Not unnecessary - incorrect. Sometimes a direct route without segregated facilities is better than an indirect route where motorists don't have to worry about your presence because you're off in the bike lane, or a rather winding trail. As an example, Paul would likely tag this road (University Boulevard) as bicycle=avoid: http://commuteorlando.com/bikebus/2010/09/23/ucf-bike-bus-still-riding-strong/ due to the presence of the Little Econ Trail a mile to the south: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.5855lon=-81.2626zoom=14layers=M If bicycle=avoid were a valid tag, I'd use it on roads like this that have unsafe bike facilities: http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/09/23/i-watched-a-guy-get-hit-yesterday/ Others would tag roads without bike lanes, and any router that uses the tag would get hopelessly confused. While this might be considered slightly eccentric tagging by some, it can hardly be considered harmful, and Paul seems to restrict this tagging to his local area. In OSM, we're usually happy if someone cares for their area, and we certainly allow them some liberties in shaping OSM for their area. Including tagging for his preferred political stance in the bike facility debate? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Dear talk-us list, we - the Data Working Group - have an issue that we hope you can help us resolve. There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past, used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring residential roads as bicycle=destination which probably stretches the meaning of the concept, and might, if there is indeed a local law saying you must use cycle routes, even be redundant. By the way, this was discussed on tagging, starting with http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-August/003370.html, and nobody agreed with Paul. ___ 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 05:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frederik-vktbmbtyydudnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org wrote: There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past, used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring residential roads as bicycle=destination which probably stretches the meaning of the concept, and might, if there is indeed a local law saying you must use cycle routes, even be redundant. There is no such law in Oregon, despite Paul's claims to the contrary. The only such law is that if there's an adjacent facility (like a sidepath) you can't ride on the road right next to it. I've previously provided citation including case law supporting my claim on this mailing list. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. If bicycle=avoid were a valid tag, I'd use it on roads like this that have unsafe bike facilities: There's no such thing as an invalid tag. access=avoid even has a proposal in the wiki to convey suitability based on local knowledge of a route. Furthermore, intentionally vandalizing someone's work is something that I don't think anybody agrees on. Stick to what you know, please. 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
I wonder if both of the named parties would consider waiting 72 hours for the community to review and consider the edits involved before commenting further? It might be a sign of good faith if they would also refrain from edits regarding this matter until the community has had a chance to comment. Frederik, are there a couple of representative edits for the community to consider as well? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I wonder if both of the named parties would consider waiting 72 hours for the community to review and consider the edits involved before commenting further? Perhaps; I think I've said my piece (the main point being that this is a political issue within the cycling community and we should not take sides). It might be a sign of good faith if they would also refrain from edits regarding this matter until the community has had a chance to comment. My last edit on the matter was a week ago, so sure. Frederik, are there a couple of representative edits for the community to consider as well? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/80292048/history should be all you need. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
Richard, On 10/17/2010 01:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: Frederik, are there a couple of representative edits for the community to consider as well? Here's a typical edit of Paul adding bicycle=destination: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5448874 And here's Nathan reverting it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5449311 (As you will see, the latter example contains objects that have meanwhile been changed back and forth in excess of 10 times.) Here's a typical edit of Paul adding bicycle=avoid and Nathan reverting it, again multiple times back and forth: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5399477/history Needless to say, edits like these unnecessarily blow up diff files and clutter the history. Bye Frederik ___ 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 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Paul Johnson baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote: If bicycle=avoid were a valid tag, I'd use it on roads like this that have unsafe bike facilities: There's no such thing as an invalid tag. access=avoid even has a proposal in the wiki to convey suitability based on local knowledge of a route. Furthermore, intentionally vandalizing someone's work is something that I don't think anybody agrees on. Stick to what you know, please. 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. 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 Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org 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. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
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? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
Hi, On 10/17/2010 12:15 AM, Frederik Ramm 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. Just to clarify our position in this regard: No matter which of the parties is right or wrong, someone who puts his vision of correct tagging over the project's wellbeing by starting or continuing an edit war can never be right. And because both parties are equally responsible for an ongoing edit war, we're inclined to ban them both if this continues. OSM can live without their contribution, but it cannot live with ongoing edit wars. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Just to clarify our position in this regard: No matter which of the parties is right or wrong, someone who puts his vision of correct tagging over the project's wellbeing by starting or continuing an edit war can never be right. And because both parties are equally responsible for an ongoing edit war, we're inclined to ban them both if this continues. OSM can live without their contribution, but it cannot live with ongoing edit wars. Let it be known that I only edit warred so the issue would be discussed, since attempts to resolve it in other ways had failed. Some time ago I was essentially told that the DWG will only intervene if there's an ongoing edit war, and this seems to be anecdotal evidence of that. If there were more constructive ways to escalate it to this level, I would have pursued them instead. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for community mediation
I'm somewhat hesitant to wade into this, but:
There is debate with the transportation/cycling community about
whether bike lanes are a good thing or a bad thing. Around me there
are some cycle lanes which are entirely within the door kill zone. I
would never ride in them, and their presence makes cars think cyclists
should be in them - rather than as far to the right as is safe, as
the law requires. So to me such a lane makes a road unusable for
cycling. (I guess my view is clear on this issue...)
We have this notion that making up new tags is fine. I think that's
not really true - we are after all cooperating on a joint work that is
intended to be broadly useful - which means a shared ontology even if
people don't want to admit that. So I think the more limited notion
that making up new tags for new situations is fine -- if one thinks
most others will think they are reasonable or will lead to a consensus
scheme, and the use of new tags is intended as a step to consensus.
For instance, I've added amenity=ice_cream but am happy to have that
be amenity=cafe cuisine=ice_cream and even to have my tags bot-edited
if the community decides that's what it should be called. After all,
it's about representing data and allowing search and display - the
actual tag rules are not that important in most cases.
The use of bicycle=destination clearly means that it is only lawful
to bicycle on that road if it is necessary to get to one's
destination. I have never heard of that being the case legally - in
my state bicycles may use any road except limited-access/express
highways posted for no bicycles. Adding bicycle=destination to a road
without some evidence that there is a law that prohibits random
cycling is hard to reconcile with my notion of data stewardship, and
it seems reasonable to revert. It also seems like tagging for the
router.
Adding bicycle=avoid seems fairly clearly not based on an expectation
of and desire for consensus. It would be constructive to find scales
for road suitability from major cycling organizations, and to tag
according to their criteria, much like sac_scale. Or to propose some
tags that are closer to being objective, like the width of the area
one can typically cycle in, and the degree of traffic. If it's based
on knowledge from being a cyclist in the community and reflects that
even hard-core road cyclist think a road is scary, then that seems
fine. But that's fairly few roads (perhaps Memorial Drive in
Cambridge/Boston). And as Nathan says, if it's no cycleway =
avoid, that steps into the political debate where many others say
cycleway with parking alongside it = risk of death, don't do it. I
think we have a NPOV obligation much like wikipedia. So it would be
fair to have cycleway=lane and cycleway_door_zone={true|false| or
something like that to express whether one is at risk of being doored
in the bike lane.
pgpEODHxwbqqc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
