Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Christoph, unregenerate implies I should apologize for doing a wrong thing. In the discussion, the only thing I **actually did** was I wrote a new tool and posted about it. Was I wrong to write a tool? Was I wrong to discuss it with the community? I patiently sifted through all the negative

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On Wednesday 22 November 2017, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the > German Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be > certain, but it looks like the German original[1] is more carefully > worded and less presumptuous. So

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Richard, in both languages, the main issue is the same. It says that the discussion has restarted with the negative commentary, but skips the main point - that the tool has been substantially reworked based on community feedback. It's like saying some people got rich without mentioning the bank

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

joost schooupe wrote: > It doesn't help that it was worded as "people are > saying", but then the last part of the sentence seems more > like their own opinion. Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the German Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Most of the important stuff has been said already, so I'm just replying because I feel like I have to, since I'm running for the OSMF board [1] on a platform partly about "let's try and keep things fun, shall we?" [2]. Some observations : - while the Weekly did make a bit of a harsh statement,

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Let's not get hung up on this, I think we're missing the point. The way the item in WeeklyOSM was written was rude and

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On 17/11/17 23:04, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 11/17/2017 07:34 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance". Imagine you're running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

john whelan wrote: No you need to build up trust again and it takes time. Only then will your ideas start to gain acceptance. Oh come on. I've been a mapper since 2010, I've hosted dozens of events, I've written many articles and tools, some of which you might have used, I'm on the Board

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

John, are you claiming the entire conversation last week had nothing to do with the merits of the tool itself? That's a very sad statement. "building up trust" implies actions. Creating a tool that mimics what other tools already do implies exactly that. Ignoring the actual tool, and instead

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Just stop this. This has been a fine example of how to decrease membership of a list that should be productive and friendly but has been anything but so far. On 18.11.2017 18:42, john whelan wrote: No you need to build up trust again and it takes time.  Only then will your ideas start to

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

No you need to build up trust again and it takes time. Only then will your ideas start to gain acceptance. Cheerio John On 18 November 2017 at 13:26, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > John, not trusting a brand name and being unreasonable about new project > are two different

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

John, not trusting a brand name and being unreasonable about new project are two different things. One is a healthy caution. The other is a baseless witch hunt, at which point it doesn't matter what the person does, what matters are the pitch forks and torches. On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:19 PM,

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

>There were many OSM edits I have done in the past. Some of them might have broken the rules. How does that relate to the new tool discussion? The conversation was about the new tool that does things the same way as several other tools. How does that break "unwritten rules"? It relates to trust

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

James, this is not about hurt feelings. This is about misrepresentation. Last week I re-wrote Sophox tool based on the community feedback. The new tool uses the same approaches as existing tools. Yet, somehow I violated some unwritten rule by creating a new tool? This is bogus. There were many

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Seriously this is what 2017 has become? A bunch of snowflakes argueing whoes feelings are hurt? Seriously grow up people, the world is not full of cupcakes and rainbows. "Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM." I was somewhat

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Andy, On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 17/11/2017 22:52, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > Frederik, > I think we are all thankful for the newsletter. And believe they are free > to publish to their own standards. However, because they use OSM resources >

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Whataboutism at its best? John Oliver: https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY?t=6m2s On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 17/11/2017 22:52, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > Frederik, > I think we are all thankful for the newsletter. And believe they are free > to

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On 17/11/2017 22:52, Clifford Snow wrote: Frederik, I think we are all thankful for the newsletter. And believe they are free to publish to their own standards. However, because they use OSM resources by publishing on our mailing lists they need respect our values. I don't think asking a

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Sheesh, you lot are hilarious sometimes. Publications have an inviolable duty to be impartial? That’s great. Very interesting attitude in 2017. Tell me when you’ve found one such. WeeklyOSM writes what WeeklyOSM wants. If you don’t like it, contribute or start your own. It saddens me that the

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > I'm immensely thankful that we have the weekly, and that it has formed > independently of the powers that be in the OSMF, and that it dares to > report things the OSMF wouldn't necessarily blog about, and that they >

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On 17/11/2017 22:04, Frederik Ramm wrote: many papers had misunderstood their journalistic impartiality as having to give both sides of an argument equal coverage Oh really?!! Well at least we now know where you stand, in case you ever put yourself forward as a candidate for the OSMF board.

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Hi, On 11/17/2017 07:34 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance". Imagine you're > running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset the > problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also > quote someone from the Flat Earth

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

One request. Can we not relitigate thie topic of Yuri's tool on this thread. Want to focus on helping WeeklyOSM to improve its coverage of our whole community. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, November 17, 2017, 4:29:39 PM EST, Steve Doerr

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On 17/11/2017 20:50, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: One important aspect was missing in the announcement. The tool's new name is a tiny part of a much bigger set of community suggested and requested changes. Fully ignoring functionality changes that many community members suggested is biased.

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

One important aspect was missing in the announcement. The tool's new name is a tiny part of a much bigger set of community suggested and requested changes. Fully ignoring functionality changes that many community members suggested is biased. Mechanical edit claim was also never justified --

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

> I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just >wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the >arguments for and against. It's just not ok to call out an individual like that. It's not appropriate, not correct and not helpful. 

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On 17/11/2017 17:52, Mikel Maron wrote: Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many better ways to summarize the

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On Friday 17 November 2017, Mikel Maron wrote: > statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and > tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, First: This is not what weeklyOSM has written. Second: I disagree this is inappropriate - inprecise maybe, but not

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Le 17 novembre 2017 17:27:05 GMT+01:00, Mikel Maron a écrit : >> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list >about the tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite >contentious. >* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron >

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many better ways to summarize the topic. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

2017-11-17 17:27 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron : > > Good point. Try this.. > > > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about > the tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite > contentious. > but then the message boils down to: "Yuri

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

> believe the version you propose is still biased, because Yuri says his tool >isn't about performing mechanical edits. Good point. Try this.. > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the >tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite contentious.

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 17 November 2017, Mikel Maron wrote: > > > > > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list > > > about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). > > > The discussion

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Good exercise Mikel, but using only 'contentious' you don't mention the issues raised in the discussion. Yves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On Friday 17 November 2017, Mikel Maron wrote: > > > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list > > about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). > > The discussion continues to be quite contentious. > > This is better. It gets the same substantial

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

2017-11-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron : > Now try this version... > > > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about > the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion > continues to be quite contentious. > > This is

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

> Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at  >impartiality Impartiality is an ongoing issue for any journalistic enterprise. WeeklyOSM has at times done better, and done worse. I think WeeklyOSM is a really valuable service, and I hope the editors there are open to our

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Hi: I've read the majority of the posts of the "New OSM Quick-Fix service" thread in OSM-talk, and I don't see any partiality in the post of the WeeklyOSM. In fact, I think they have been very polite and diplomatic. Cheers, Rafael. On 17/11/17 11:34, Steve Doerr wrote: On 17/11/2017

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On Friday 17 November 2017, Steve Doerr wrote: > > Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at > impartiality. Huh? "perceived by many as unreasonable as before" is a clear statement of distancing themselves from this opinion. Impartiality does not mean you have to

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

On 17/11/2017 08:20, weeklyteam wrote: Yuri Astrakhanre-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called/Sophox/). Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as before

[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 382, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9699/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages