On reflection, I don't really laugh with scorn in the face of the Mechanical
Edit Policy. But it certainly looks like a mess to me.
My take would be to attempt to extract the spirit of that policy and not bother
kvetching over the letter of it. The phrase "rough consensus and running code"
is
Andy Allan writes:
>
> This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response
> over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine.
> Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter
> end. That's an over-reaction.
>
> No, that can't work any more.
Andy,
"[Citation needed] :-) "
;-)
Well please share the thoughts about what suggestions you have.
I shudder to think how many man hours Math has placed/wasted into doing this
so far, and how many more he should do for these (small) changes.
Cheers,
John
--
View this message in context:
h
On 18/12/2014 18:14, Rovastar wrote:
And Andy I am surprised at you quoting a wiki - I though you didn't believe
in such crowd sourced projects.
[citation needed] :-)
I actually spent quite a bit of time last night trying to suggest ways
to draft his proposals to "help scratch his itch" in a
Brian Prangle wrote:
Matthij's proposal as it now stands is not controversial and
is merely a typo cleanup. I'm amazed at his patience.
My assumption is that Matthijs is preparing an academic paper about
OSM in which he will reveal the number of hours work required per
byte of non-controversial
The only thing that surprises me here is how long Math carried on with this.
With no pleasure I say "I told you so".
There was no way this was going through, a single objection by an OSM
dinosaur and DWG will overrule.
And Andy I am surprised at you quoting a wiki - I though you didn't believe
in
Andy, you make some excellent points.
It would be interesting to know how decisions can be made - it seems the
mailing list is no longer representative of editors, and neither is the
wiki
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in
Hooray for Andy Allan - some commonsense!
On 18 December 2014 at 13:36, Andy Allan wrote:
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 wrote:
> > I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.
>
> I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
> farcical. After setting
On 12/18/2014 2:24 AM, Dan S wrote:
Hi Matthijs,
The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since
consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus
is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's
assume there's a relative meaning of the term
We're boiling the ocean here.Matthij's proposal as it now stands is not
controversial and is merely a typo cleanup. I'm amazed at his patience.
On 18 December 2014 at 13:59, Chris Fleming wrote:
>
> I really struggled to see how this mechanical edit can do any harm. I
> certainly don't see people
2014-12-18 12:19 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse :
> On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matthijs,
>>
>> The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since
>> consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus
>> is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours
+1
Regards,
Stuart
> On 18 Dec 2014, at 13:36, Andy Allan wrote:
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 wrote:
>> I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.
>
> I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
> farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for
I really struggled to see how this mechanical edit can do any harm. I
certainly don't see people manually fixing all of these, and frankly there
are better things to do with our time.
If people are watching locally for changes, they should see them happen
which is quite a good trigger to check the
On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> All your mechanical edit does
> is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great effect -
> it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited set
> of circumstances.
So let's JFDI then, right?
Thanks,
On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 wrote:
> I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.
I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through,
which he has done, and then because he managed that creati
On 18/12/14 12:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>> However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small
>> > discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that
>> > needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them
>> > otherwise.
>> >
>> > Finding s
> Finding small problems like this does have an advantage, but it looks
> like fixing them mechanically is actually missing the opportunity to
> improve the map in other ways at the same time.
As it happens, the local Sainsbury's that I just updated also made me realise
that there is now aerial i
On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small
> discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that
> needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them
> otherwise.
>
> Finding small
On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote:
Hi Matthijs,
The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since
consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus
is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's
assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;
On 18/12/2014 12:05, Ed Loach wrote:
Perhaps just posting Overpass links and locals manually making the changes
would be better?
I think Ed has hit the nail on the head here. All your mechanical edit
does is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great
effect - it's just th
Perhaps just posting Overpass links and locals manually making the changes
would be better? I compared the Overpass before and after links only to find
that the nearest item on the first link is missing on the second as the
Sainsbury(')s is missing a shop tag. And now it also misses the adjacent
On 18/12/2014 10:48, Dan S wrote:
2014-12-18 10:39 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse :
On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular
areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the
section 'Oppositions and opt-out'.
A
This is only an issue with the demo I generated, not with the proposal
itself (in the proposal itself, I explicitly restrict changes to
objects with a shop key). Thanks for pointing out this discrepancy.
I generated an improved Overpass Turbo link: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6Aj
-- Matthijs
On 1
You are not checking that the entities are shops. In my area the Overpass
Turbo finds the following node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502411262
a bus stop, from a NaPTAN import.
Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.
I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing. We are hearing
repeats of the same things over again, and appear to now be bikeshedding
import and mechanical edit policies.
No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it at
that "we agree to disagree". It is usu
On 18 Dec 2014 10:40, "SomeoneElse" wrote:
>
> On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>>
>> If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular
>> areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the
>> section 'Oppositions and opt-out'.
>
>
> At the risk of r
2014-12-18 10:39 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse :
> On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>>
>> If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular
>> areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the
>> section 'Oppositions and opt-out'.
>
>
> At the risk of restat
On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular
areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the
section 'Oppositions and opt-out'.
At the risk of restating the obvious,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mec
Hi Matthijs,
The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since
consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus
is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's
assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;)
For the record, I still think tak
29 matches
Mail list logo
