But Daniel's comments make sense, I'm not sure we should go for this type of approach.
Still I concur with them. On the forests there is an issue but its not open to a simplistic approach and hence difficult to resolve. John On 30 August 2016 at 18:28, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm totally in agreement with Daniel, especially that it creates a hostile > community > > On Aug 30, 2016 6:05 PM, "Pierre Béland" <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> J'invite les autres contributeurs canadiens à indiquer leur accord avec >> le message de Daniel. :) >> >> I invite other canadian OSM contributors to express their agreement with >> Daniel message. :) >> >> >> Pierre >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *De :* Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> >> *À :* James <james2...@gmail.com>; Adam Martin <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com> >> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> >> *Envoyé le :* mardi 30 août 2016 17h35 >> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada >> >> I have contacted the user that is about/has deleted some changesets >> imported from Canvec. I may agree on some of his comments but totally >> disagree on the method he is using to make his point. >> >> I do not know what the DWG will do about this guy but here is the message >> I sent him... >> Bonjour Nakaner, I understand that you wish the data in OSM being >> accurate, well-structured and made according to the rules developed by the >> OSM community. However, I would strongly suggest that you discuss your >> point with the Canadian community before deleting any changesets. >> >> Canvec imports are running for more than 6 years and the structure of the >> data was discussed with the Canadian OSM community, including OSMF members, >> for more than a year. The result is a compromise that used to suit most >> members. The rules you are mentioning in the comments you leave where not >> even written at that time. >> >> Most Canadian importers simply keep doing what they used to do years ago. >> If you consider they should not, have a discussion with the whole Canadian >> community. You will then be able to make your point, make everyone aware of >> these rules and understand your concerns. >> >> You will then be able to build a stronger community, not discourage >> people to contribute because they have made errors... >> >> Daniel >> >> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 09:18 >> *To:* Adam Martin >> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada >> >> He's even going to revert my work: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742 >> I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous. >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Adam Martin <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> That's a pretty harsh thing to deal with. Imports are difficult and the >> time needed to get them right is not a small investment. To have someone >> review this work is a valuable service, but I don't think just blanket >> reverting due to the violation of one rule is the solution, especially in >> context of the lack of data in some of those areas. The CANVEC stuff will >> do until surveys or satellite data catches up with those areas. >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Marshall <rps...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped >> Northern Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert >> some of my work I'm stopping:( >> >> John >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
