Re: [talk-au] Topic B: inconsistencies, idiosynchrosies and vagueness
There are inconsistencies from one place to another around the world. These idiosyncrasies are what make the world so interesting for travellers. OSM needs to cater for that. Reading the OSM wiki can be reading the last change by some editor 'fixing' it for their view, which may well be fine for their part of the world but not meet your view out your window. Some mappers now ignore the wiki. For Australian specific thing - this list and the wiki guidelines are your friend. Changing the Australian Guide wiki is usually done by consultation here, so you get a broader view than a single idea. On the general wiki .. vagueness may well be in place to allow for these world variations. Changing it is difficult in that others may object to your changes... the problem becomes one of reaching an agreement.. and then someone else objects etc. On 21/09/19 12:02, Sebastian S. wrote: Hi Andrew, I fully, whole heartedly agreed. Wiki is supposed so evolve. Gardening to fix little broken or spelling issues. Bigger changes are best outlined here on the list to capture common sentiment. I must admit I often just look up things in the wiki, so for me it is mostly a reference and it takes more commitment to actually improve. To update e.g. tagging guideline aspects one would first need to step back, which is what you seem to have done. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 21 September 2019 10:45:44 am AEST, Andrew Harvey wrote: I completely agree the "how to map" of OpenStreetMap (not just tags, but also things like when to split a highway, when to snap nodes, what should be mapped etc) is full of "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness". But when I look at where OSM is today I think we've done a pretty amazing job all things considered, yes we still have much more work to do, but being a mostly volunteer self organising community the best way to make OSM stronger is hands on driving this change. I think the easiest way to get started is improving documentation on the wiki, documenting all the different "how to map" concepts used today, documenting these "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness", then as a community we can refine approaches to eventually resolve these issues. There's a lot of precedent in OSM for deprecating things when we have better/more commonly used. Any time you encounter an inconsistencies I'd encourage you to raise it, either on the globally tagging list, or if it's local here on talk-au. On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 09:57, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: A special thank you for the links yesterday. I have read them. "Australian Tagging Guidelines" and "Good practice" are worth knowing and I am very grateful for our forefathers that put so much effort into writing these documents. It worth noting, however, when you compared the two that they are riddled with inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness. It is worth remembering this when we experience another of those "I am right, you are wrong" conversations. Reading "Australian Tagging Guidelines," I thought of Geffory Rush from Pirates of the Carribean, "they are more guidelines than rules." Unapproved tracktypes for 4WD (inventing tags, don't exist but perhaps they should) and small towns called cities so they appear the map (mapping for the renderer), and the principle of "we map what is there" but then don't map what is private (often difficult to verify too). The descriptions are full of contradictions and vagueness. The "Lifecycle prefix" wikitext needs more work, particularly examples of use to get consistency in its application. As much of it is not rendered (Mapnik), mapping it could be considered as a low priority. Harry Wood's blog "community smoothness" addresses vagueness in language and how everybody has a different opinion of what a text means. That is not new of course and with certainty, everybody has an opinion about what the right way is. It is human nature, when it comes to our own beliefs, every evidence supporting it is embraced and every evidence against excluded. Finally, it is easy to forget that the Wiki is written in dozens of different languages and there will be inconsistencies between Wiki entries in different languages. I can verify that for two. English and German wiki pages descriptions are not surprisingly culture-specific (see also the chemist/pharmacy/drug store discussion for AU/UK/US comparison). Despite our best efforts inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness will reign in the OSM anarchy. ___
Re: [talk-au] topic A: the platform itself
Hello, I think it is important to be precise in the language we use. Therefore I'd like to point out that this is a mailing list and not a forum. If you find the UI poor then this likely due to the way you use the mailing list. Browsing the archives on the list website is not how I participate on current topics. I use mostly my phone's email client. My email client does thread topics together which allows to follow or skip certain topics. Just thought I throw this in because when people speak of a forum I don't think of this mailing list and forum UI has in my view no relevance to mailing list UI. Cheers, Seb -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 20 September 2019 5:25:18 pm AEST, Edoardo Neerhut wrote: >Thanks for bringing this up Herbert. > >*Similar sentiments* >This has actually been bothering me the last few weeks as I started to >realise how much of my day is spent reading through talklists that do >not >have relevance to me or that I do not have time to respond to. For >those of >us subscribed to multiple talklists, it becomes a very time consuming >and >inefficient communication method. > >The problem is that you need to read every single one in case you miss >something relevant. There are lot of good conversations taking place >and I >wish I had time to engage more, but I need to be selective. > >*The platform* >I like the idea of a forum which can be categorised and allow the >viewer to >make quicker decisions about which topics that would like to engage >with. >Whether that is the OpenStreetMap forum or something else doesn't >bother >me. Although the OpenStreetMap forum would make sense so that people >can >find it easily. > >Slack is very convenient, but it is not good for important discussions >because the messages get archived unless you sign up to a cost >prohibitive >plan which our community would not be able to afford. > >*Setting a standard* >I am not sure any of this can be dictated, but it is a good discussion >to >have and I would be interested to see how the rest of the community >feels. >Of course asking here is inherently going to target those already using >the >talklists, so I will bring this up in other places as well. > >Overall I support the interest to discuss this on a more efficient, >intuitive platform. > >On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 09:10, David Wales >wrote: > >> I am a member of some international OSM Slack channels. >> >> However, because it requires a whole different app (which I only have >> space for on my computer), I only check it monthly at best. >> >> On the other hand, I read every talk-au message within a few days of >> original posting, because they all arrive in my email inbox on my >phone. >> >> If the number of talk-au emails reaches overwhelming levels, it might >be >> necessary to investigate other solutions. However, I don't think we >have >> reached that point yet. >> >> If we ever did explore alternatives, I would prefer an open platform, >> which we can host ourselves, rather than Slack or some other >proprietary >> system. >> >> Regards, >> David >> >> On 20 September 2019 4:31:44 pm AEST, Frederik Ramm > >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 9/20/19 03:14, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: >>> I will post several concerns and information on several issues, but >the first is this platform itself. >>> >>> You call this platform a "forum" which is ok in the abstract sense, >but >>> note that there is actually an Australia forum in addition to this >>> Australia mailing list >>> (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24). The forum >>> provides a slightly different user experience but is used less. >>> >>> In other countries, people have set up Slack channels or Facebook >groups >>> or even more esoteric channels of communication, in addition of or >as a >>> replacement for mailing lists - browse >>> https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index if you want to get an >idea. >>> >>> There's no strict rule about where the OSM community should discuss >>> their issues, however media that requires prior registration with a >>> third-party entity - like Slack or Facebook - are sometimes frowned >upon >>> as they give control over who can participate to that third party >and >>> might require the participant to agree to wide-ranging exploitation >of >>> their personal data by a commercial entity. >>> >>> In Germany where I hail from, the forum and the mailing list are >used by >>> about the same number of (but largely different) people, and since >the >>> total number of contributors is large enough to guarantee lively >>> discussion on both, that's totally fine. Germany also has mailing >lists >>> for individual states but they are used very little, and even >>> state-specific issues would often be discussed on the nationwide >list to >>> ensure they get enough attention. >>> >>> Speaking very generally, OSM has achieved the success it has with a >>> "just do it" attitude: Instead of
Re: [talk-au] Topic B: inconsistencies, idiosynchrosies and vagueness
Hi Andrew, I fully, whole heartedly agreed. Wiki is supposed so evolve. Gardening to fix little broken or spelling issues. Bigger changes are best outlined here on the list to capture common sentiment. I must admit I often just look up things in the wiki, so for me it is mostly a reference and it takes more commitment to actually improve. To update e.g. tagging guideline aspects one would first need to step back, which is what you seem to have done. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 21 September 2019 10:45:44 am AEST, Andrew Harvey wrote: >I completely agree the "how to map" of OpenStreetMap (not just tags, >but >also things like when to split a highway, when to snap nodes, what >should >be mapped etc) is full of "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and >vagueness". >But when I look at where OSM is today I think we've done a pretty >amazing >job all things considered, yes we still have much more work to do, but >being a mostly volunteer self organising community the best way to make >OSM >stronger is hands on driving this change. > >I think the easiest way to get started is improving documentation on >the >wiki, documenting all the different "how to map" concepts used today, >documenting these "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness", then >as >a community we can refine approaches to eventually resolve these >issues. >There's a lot of precedent in OSM for deprecating things when we have >better/more commonly used. > >Any time you encounter an inconsistencies I'd encourage you to raise >it, >either on the globally tagging list, or if it's local here on talk-au. > >On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 09:57, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < >talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> A special thank you for the links yesterday. I have read them. >"Australian >> Tagging Guidelines" and "Good practice" are worth knowing and I am >very >> grateful for our forefathers that put so much effort into writing >these >> documents. It worth noting, however, when you compared the two that >they >> are riddled with inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness. It is >worth >> remembering this when we experience another of those "I am right, you >are >> wrong" conversations. >> Reading "Australian Tagging Guidelines," I thought of Geffory Rush >from >> Pirates of the Carribean, "they are more guidelines than rules." >Unapproved >> tracktypes for 4WD (inventing tags, don't exist but perhaps they >should) >> and small towns called cities so they appear the map (mapping for the >> renderer), and the principle of "we map what is there" but then don't >map >> what is private (often difficult to verify too). The descriptions are >full >> of contradictions and vagueness. The "Lifecycle prefix" wikitext >needs more >> work, particularly examples of use to get consistency in its >application. >> As much of it is not rendered (Mapnik), mapping it could be >considered as a >> low priority. >> Harry Wood's blog "community smoothness" addresses vagueness in >language >> and how everybody has a different opinion of what a text means. That >is not >> new of course and with certainty, everybody has an opinion about what >the >> right way is. It is human nature, when it comes to our own beliefs, >every >> evidence supporting it is embraced and every evidence against >excluded. >> Finally, it is easy to forget that the Wiki is written in dozens of >> different languages and there will be inconsistencies between Wiki >entries >> in different languages. I can verify that for two. English and German >wiki >> pages descriptions are not surprisingly culture-specific (see also >the >> chemist/pharmacy/drug store discussion for AU/UK/US comparison). >> Despite our best efforts inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and >vagueness >> will reign in the OSM anarchy. >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Topic B: inconsistencies, idiosynchrosies and vagueness
I completely agree the "how to map" of OpenStreetMap (not just tags, but also things like when to split a highway, when to snap nodes, what should be mapped etc) is full of "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness". But when I look at where OSM is today I think we've done a pretty amazing job all things considered, yes we still have much more work to do, but being a mostly volunteer self organising community the best way to make OSM stronger is hands on driving this change. I think the easiest way to get started is improving documentation on the wiki, documenting all the different "how to map" concepts used today, documenting these "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness", then as a community we can refine approaches to eventually resolve these issues. There's a lot of precedent in OSM for deprecating things when we have better/more commonly used. Any time you encounter an inconsistencies I'd encourage you to raise it, either on the globally tagging list, or if it's local here on talk-au. On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 09:57, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > A special thank you for the links yesterday. I have read them. "Australian > Tagging Guidelines" and "Good practice" are worth knowing and I am very > grateful for our forefathers that put so much effort into writing these > documents. It worth noting, however, when you compared the two that they > are riddled with inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness. It is worth > remembering this when we experience another of those "I am right, you are > wrong" conversations. > Reading "Australian Tagging Guidelines," I thought of Geffory Rush from > Pirates of the Carribean, "they are more guidelines than rules." Unapproved > tracktypes for 4WD (inventing tags, don't exist but perhaps they should) > and small towns called cities so they appear the map (mapping for the > renderer), and the principle of "we map what is there" but then don't map > what is private (often difficult to verify too). The descriptions are full > of contradictions and vagueness. The "Lifecycle prefix" wikitext needs more > work, particularly examples of use to get consistency in its application. > As much of it is not rendered (Mapnik), mapping it could be considered as a > low priority. > Harry Wood's blog "community smoothness" addresses vagueness in language > and how everybody has a different opinion of what a text means. That is not > new of course and with certainty, everybody has an opinion about what the > right way is. It is human nature, when it comes to our own beliefs, every > evidence supporting it is embraced and every evidence against excluded. > Finally, it is easy to forget that the Wiki is written in dozens of > different languages and there will be inconsistencies between Wiki entries > in different languages. I can verify that for two. English and German wiki > pages descriptions are not surprisingly culture-specific (see also the > chemist/pharmacy/drug store discussion for AU/UK/US comparison). > Despite our best efforts inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness > will reign in the OSM anarchy. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Topic B: inconsistencies, idiosynchrosies and vagueness
A special thank you for the links yesterday. I have read them. "Australian Tagging Guidelines" and "Good practice" are worth knowing and I am very grateful for our forefathers that put so much effort into writing these documents. It worth noting, however, when you compared the two that they are riddled with inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness. It is worth remembering this when we experience another of those "I am right, you are wrong" conversations. Reading "Australian Tagging Guidelines," I thought of Geffory Rush from Pirates of the Carribean, "they are more guidelines than rules." Unapproved tracktypes for 4WD (inventing tags, don't exist but perhaps they should) and small towns called cities so they appear the map (mapping for the renderer), and the principle of "we map what is there" but then don't map what is private (often difficult to verify too). The descriptions are full of contradictions and vagueness. The "Lifecycle prefix" wikitext needs more work, particularly examples of use to get consistency in its application. As much of it is not rendered (Mapnik), mapping it could be considered as a low priority. Harry Wood's blog "community smoothness" addresses vagueness in language and how everybody has a different opinion of what a text means. That is not new of course and with certainty, everybody has an opinion about what the right way is. It is human nature, when it comes to our own beliefs, every evidence supporting it is embraced and every evidence against excluded. Finally, it is easy to forget that the Wiki is written in dozens of different languages and there will be inconsistencies between Wiki entries in different languages. I can verify that for two. English and German wiki pages descriptions are not surprisingly culture-specific (see also the chemist/pharmacy/drug store discussion for AU/UK/US comparison). Despite our best efforts inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness will reign in the OSM anarchy.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] topic A: the platform itself
Please allow me to share some experiences of moving to another platform we had in our community. In Belgium we moved from the mailing list to Matrix/Riot . Most active participants in the community made the move, but in the process we lost some people Matrix/Riot is good for short questions, but is IMHO very bad for longer discussions. We have 1 or 2 people that insist on using the forum, so some things have to be repeated there. When I look at the neighbouring countries, it notice that it is difficult to move people from one platform to another. Some stick with mail, some with the forum, etc. It will probably be hard to convince people to use a new platform and they will be the first to pinpoint any weaknesses in the new platform and either go back to the old platform or "leave" the community. Just my 2 cents regards m On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:27 AM Edoardo Neerhut wrote: > > Thanks for bringing this up Herbert. > > Similar sentiments > This has actually been bothering me the last few weeks as I started to > realise how much of my day is spent reading through talklists that do not > have relevance to me or that I do not have time to respond to. For those of > us subscribed to multiple talklists, it becomes a very time consuming and > inefficient communication method. > > The problem is that you need to read every single one in case you miss > something relevant. There are lot of good conversations taking place and I > wish I had time to engage more, but I need to be selective. > > The platform > I like the idea of a forum which can be categorised and allow the viewer to > make quicker decisions about which topics that would like to engage with. > Whether that is the OpenStreetMap forum or something else doesn't bother me. > Although the OpenStreetMap forum would make sense so that people can find it > easily. > > Slack is very convenient, but it is not good for important discussions > because the messages get archived unless you sign up to a cost prohibitive > plan which our community would not be able to afford. > > Setting a standard > I am not sure any of this can be dictated, but it is a good discussion to > have and I would be interested to see how the rest of the community feels. Of > course asking here is inherently going to target those already using the > talklists, so I will bring this up in other places as well. > > Overall I support the interest to discuss this on a more efficient, intuitive > platform. > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 09:10, David Wales wrote: >> >> I am a member of some international OSM Slack channels. >> >> However, because it requires a whole different app (which I only have space >> for on my computer), I only check it monthly at best. >> >> On the other hand, I read every talk-au message within a few days of >> original posting, because they all arrive in my email inbox on my phone. >> >> If the number of talk-au emails reaches overwhelming levels, it might be >> necessary to investigate other solutions. However, I don't think we have >> reached that point yet. >> >> If we ever did explore alternatives, I would prefer an open platform, which >> we can host ourselves, rather than Slack or some other proprietary system. >> >> Regards, >> David >> >> On 20 September 2019 4:31:44 pm AEST, Frederik Ramm >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 9/20/19 03:14, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: I will post several concerns and information on several issues, but the first is this platform itself. >>> >>> >>> You call this platform a "forum" which is ok in the abstract sense, but >>> note that there is actually an Australia forum in addition to this >>> Australia mailing list >>> (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24). The forum >>> provides a slightly different user experience but is used less. >>> >>> In other countries, people have set up Slack channels or Facebook groups >>> or even more esoteric channels of communication, in addition of or as a >>> replacement for mailing lists - browse >>> https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index if you want to get an idea. >>> >>> There's no strict rule about where the OSM community should discuss >>> their issues, however media that requires prior registration with a >>> third-party entity - like Slack or Facebook - are sometimes frowned upon >>> as they give control over who can participate to that third party and >>> might require the participant to agree to wide-ranging exploitation of >>> their personal data by a commercial entity. >>> >>> In Germany where I hail from, the forum and the mailing list are used by >>> about the same number of (but largely different) people, and since the >>> total number of contributors is large enough to guarantee lively >>> discussion on both, that's totally fine. Germany also has mailing lists >>> for individual states but they are used very little, and even >>> state-specific issues would often be discussed on the nationwide list to >>> ensure
Re: [talk-au] topic A: the platform itself
Thanks for bringing this up Herbert. *Similar sentiments* This has actually been bothering me the last few weeks as I started to realise how much of my day is spent reading through talklists that do not have relevance to me or that I do not have time to respond to. For those of us subscribed to multiple talklists, it becomes a very time consuming and inefficient communication method. The problem is that you need to read every single one in case you miss something relevant. There are lot of good conversations taking place and I wish I had time to engage more, but I need to be selective. *The platform* I like the idea of a forum which can be categorised and allow the viewer to make quicker decisions about which topics that would like to engage with. Whether that is the OpenStreetMap forum or something else doesn't bother me. Although the OpenStreetMap forum would make sense so that people can find it easily. Slack is very convenient, but it is not good for important discussions because the messages get archived unless you sign up to a cost prohibitive plan which our community would not be able to afford. *Setting a standard* I am not sure any of this can be dictated, but it is a good discussion to have and I would be interested to see how the rest of the community feels. Of course asking here is inherently going to target those already using the talklists, so I will bring this up in other places as well. Overall I support the interest to discuss this on a more efficient, intuitive platform. On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 09:10, David Wales wrote: > I am a member of some international OSM Slack channels. > > However, because it requires a whole different app (which I only have > space for on my computer), I only check it monthly at best. > > On the other hand, I read every talk-au message within a few days of > original posting, because they all arrive in my email inbox on my phone. > > If the number of talk-au emails reaches overwhelming levels, it might be > necessary to investigate other solutions. However, I don't think we have > reached that point yet. > > If we ever did explore alternatives, I would prefer an open platform, > which we can host ourselves, rather than Slack or some other proprietary > system. > > Regards, > David > > On 20 September 2019 4:31:44 pm AEST, Frederik Ramm > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 9/20/19 03:14, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: >> >>> I will post several concerns and information on several issues, but the >>> first is this platform itself. >>> >> >> You call this platform a "forum" which is ok in the abstract sense, but >> note that there is actually an Australia forum in addition to this >> Australia mailing list >> (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24). The forum >> provides a slightly different user experience but is used less. >> >> In other countries, people have set up Slack channels or Facebook groups >> or even more esoteric channels of communication, in addition of or as a >> replacement for mailing lists - browse >> https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index if you want to get an idea. >> >> There's no strict rule about where the OSM community should discuss >> their issues, however media that requires prior registration with a >> third-party entity - like Slack or Facebook - are sometimes frowned upon >> as they give control over who can participate to that third party and >> might require the participant to agree to wide-ranging exploitation of >> their personal data by a commercial entity. >> >> In Germany where I hail from, the forum and the mailing list are used by >> about the same number of (but largely different) people, and since the >> total number of contributors is large enough to guarantee lively >> discussion on both, that's totally fine. Germany also has mailing lists >> for individual states but they are used very little, and even >> state-specific issues would often be discussed on the nationwide list to >> ensure they get enough attention. >> >> Speaking very generally, OSM has achieved the success it has with a >> "just do it" attitude: Instead of saying, 15 years ago, "BEFORE we >> start, let's come up with a good data scheme and a feature catalogue", >> people said "let's just start and then fix things as we go along". >> >> My recommendation would be to just stat discussing whatever needs >> discussing on the talk-au mailing list and branch out as the need >> arises. If something is worth discussing then a non-ideal UI should not >> be the blocker, and if it is, then maybe the issue is not so important. >> >> Bye >> Frederik >> >> ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] topic A: the platform itself
I am a member of some international OSM Slack channels. However, because it requires a whole different app (which I only have space for on my computer), I only check it monthly at best. On the other hand, I read every talk-au message within a few days of original posting, because they all arrive in my email inbox on my phone. If the number of talk-au emails reaches overwhelming levels, it might be necessary to investigate other solutions. However, I don't think we have reached that point yet. If we ever did explore alternatives, I would prefer an open platform, which we can host ourselves, rather than Slack or some other proprietary system. Regards, David On 20 September 2019 4:31:44 pm AEST, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Hi, > >On 9/20/19 03:14, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: >> I will post several concerns and information on several issues, but >the >> first is this platform itself. > >You call this platform a "forum" which is ok in the abstract sense, but >note that there is actually an Australia forum in addition to this >Australia mailing list >(https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24). The forum >provides a slightly different user experience but is used less. > >In other countries, people have set up Slack channels or Facebook >groups >or even more esoteric channels of communication, in addition of or as a >replacement for mailing lists - browse >https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index if you want to get an >idea. > >There's no strict rule about where the OSM community should discuss >their issues, however media that requires prior registration with a >third-party entity - like Slack or Facebook - are sometimes frowned >upon >as they give control over who can participate to that third party and >might require the participant to agree to wide-ranging exploitation of >their personal data by a commercial entity. > >In Germany where I hail from, the forum and the mailing list are used >by >about the same number of (but largely different) people, and since the >total number of contributors is large enough to guarantee lively >discussion on both, that's totally fine. Germany also has mailing lists >for individual states but they are used very little, and even >state-specific issues would often be discussed on the nationwide list >to >ensure they get enough attention. > >Speaking very generally, OSM has achieved the success it has with a >"just do it" attitude: Instead of saying, 15 years ago, "BEFORE we >start, let's come up with a good data scheme and a feature catalogue", >people said "let's just start and then fix things as we go along". > >My recommendation would be to just stat discussing whatever needs >discussing on the talk-au mailing list and branch out as the need >arises. If something is worth discussing then a non-ideal UI should not >be the blocker, and if it is, then maybe the issue is not so important. > >Bye >Frederik > >-- >Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" >E008°23'33" > >___ >Talk-au mailing list >Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] topic A: the platform itself
Hi, On 9/20/19 03:14, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: > I will post several concerns and information on several issues, but the > first is this platform itself. You call this platform a "forum" which is ok in the abstract sense, but note that there is actually an Australia forum in addition to this Australia mailing list (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24). The forum provides a slightly different user experience but is used less. In other countries, people have set up Slack channels or Facebook groups or even more esoteric channels of communication, in addition of or as a replacement for mailing lists - browse https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index if you want to get an idea. There's no strict rule about where the OSM community should discuss their issues, however media that requires prior registration with a third-party entity - like Slack or Facebook - are sometimes frowned upon as they give control over who can participate to that third party and might require the participant to agree to wide-ranging exploitation of their personal data by a commercial entity. In Germany where I hail from, the forum and the mailing list are used by about the same number of (but largely different) people, and since the total number of contributors is large enough to guarantee lively discussion on both, that's totally fine. Germany also has mailing lists for individual states but they are used very little, and even state-specific issues would often be discussed on the nationwide list to ensure they get enough attention. Speaking very generally, OSM has achieved the success it has with a "just do it" attitude: Instead of saying, 15 years ago, "BEFORE we start, let's come up with a good data scheme and a feature catalogue", people said "let's just start and then fix things as we go along". My recommendation would be to just stat discussing whatever needs discussing on the talk-au mailing list and branch out as the need arises. If something is worth discussing then a non-ideal UI should not be the blocker, and if it is, then maybe the issue is not so important. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
