I can agree with the last sentence, but not much else.
I think most of the people in this thread genuinely want to work with
the various parks services to get OSM solutions that work for both parks
and the OSM community.
We don't currently have any good communication channels.
If we can get
Hi,
On 29/02/2024 12:56, Andrew Welch via Talk-au wrote:
Part of the reason why we want them to map the way
we map is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it
is informal (so downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and
usually considered private property (again, so
I have to disagree with the first part of that. OSM is designed as
somewhere where you can map pretty much anything that exists, as long as it
can be verified. Part of the reason why we want them to map the way we map
is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it is
informal (so
Thanks Tony.
The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
purity.
The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come
I think we have tried to reach out directly in the past but I could be
wrong. Communication is 100% the issue, and not for lack of trying.
If anyone does have contacts within NPWS or is willing to try and reach out
to get a discussion going, it definitely would be worth a shot.
Even if it's just
Thanks Adam, well put.
There are two groups, both trying to be of service to the wider
community. The mappers trying to build better maps and land managers
trying to protect and manage public land well.
If a land manager sees mappers not respecting their decisions about
managing public
Frederik basically covers what I was trying to say, the edits go against
how we map in OSM, and repeated attempts to work with them just haven't
worked yet. OSM does not belong to NPWS, they can't just go deleting things
like it's their own GIS system.
If they have better things to do, then they
Hi,
On 29/02/2024 11:20, Adam Steer wrote:
Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land
managers vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land
effectively?
You're right that in the strict sense of the word you'd only use it for
someone who damages OSM
Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land managers
vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land effectively?
This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.
It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:
- OSM
Yep, any "normal" mapper would have been reverted & had a holiday if they
persisted, long before this!
Thanks
Graeme
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 20:01, Andrew Welch wrote:
> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
> point at which we should treat their edits like
As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
their deletions) until they actually work with us.
Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick
I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls Lookout,
after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
Thanks
Graeme
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> The user who's edits were revered by
12 matches
Mail list logo
