Apr 23, 2019, 10:47 AM by i...@zverev.info:
> Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> Please note that by using "vandalism" you claim that this action was
>> malicious.
>> Unless you have really, really good reason to claim that whoever did it was
>> deliberately
>> doing this to damage OSM the
See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous
Am 22.04.2019 um 20:40 schrieb mmd:
> Am 22.04.19 um 12:37 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
>> ago, in March 2018.
>>
>> Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has
Am 22.04.2019 um 18:46 schrieb Dave F via talk:
> Was this new/improvement additions or bug/maintenance fix?
As said, it was an addition.
Simon
>
> DaveF
>
> On 22/04/2019 11:37, Simon Poole wrote:
>> The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
>> ago, in March 2018.
Frederik, thanks for expressing your point of view. I always admire your posts
and occasionally translate them for the Russian audience. I know I cannot
change your (or anybody’s) view, but I hope in time I can explain you mine.
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'm tired of this gatekeeper nonsense. Your
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Please note that by using "vandalism" you claim that this action was
> malicious.
> Unless you have really, really good reason to claim that whoever did it was
> deliberately
> doing this to damage OSM the please avoid such claims.
Well, if you don’t intend your
Apr 21, 2019, 11:03 PM by i...@zverev.info:
> Please, could we have a deletion policy in our wiki that clearly states "No
> obsolete pages here", forbidding deletion of anything except spam or
> otherwise harmful pages? Deleting our history is plain vandalism
>
Please note that by using
Am 22.04.19 um 12:37 schrieb Simon Poole:
> The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
> ago, in March 2018.
>
> Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather
> disingenuous.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 22.04.2019 um 11:59 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
>> This
Hi,
On 4/22/19 11:59, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t
> any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody
> died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years
> after it was
Was this new/improvement additions or bug/maintenance fix?
DaveF
On 22/04/2019 11:37, Simon Poole wrote:
The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
ago, in March 2018.
Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather
disingenuous.
Simon
Am
If the whole issue is optimizing search results, lets just create an
"Archive" namespace that is not included in search by default. Moving to
archive is different from deleting because only admins can see deleted
content.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:11 AM Lester Caine wrote:
> On 22/04/2019
On 22/04/2019 11:45, Ilya Zverev wrote:
It’s history.
Ilya ... it's the same problem we have with with a lot of the historic
material. Personally I'd prefer to see the history accessible in some
way, be it the history of the development of a area of mapping data, or
the history of how we got
It’s history.
Why do we keep buildings and roads in the OSM database, that were demolished
years ago? They are still there, versions 1 and 2, deleted by an active mapper.
Why do we keep mailing lists archives from 2004? To argue with points made by
people that left the project a decade ago?
The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
ago, in March 2018.
Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather
disingenuous.
Simon
Am 22.04.2019 um 11:59 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
> This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there
Of course, being a wiki, it isn't actually deleted, just marked as deleted. But
looking at it now I can't see why we'd still want it in the wiki, asking people
to use possibly no longer existent api end points to test software that long
since has been tested.
Ed
This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t
any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody
died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years
after it was introduced.
Ilya
> On 22 Apr 2019, at 09:35, Jochen
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:03:40AM +0300, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> In my research of API 0.6 (which turned ten years old yesterday) I've
> stumbled on this page:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/Crowd_sourced_Testing
>
> It was deleted 7 years ago. And this is a disaster. The page
Hi,
In my research of API 0.6 (which turned ten years old yesterday) I've
stumbled on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/Crowd_sourced_Testing
It was deleted 7 years ago. And this is a disaster. The page was an
important milestone in our history: authors, dates, items
17 matches
Mail list logo
