In this specific case, I have been marking Texas frontage roads the same way you have, and it annoys me as well when NE2 changes this.
I think, however, that it's more important to keep the data open and editable by anyone. There needs to be a better way to solve disputes like this, without imposing a blanket punishment on everyone, when the vast majority of us have done nothing wrong. On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Sam Iacullo <sjiacu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > This email will be divided into two parts. The first contains specifics > about the email that touched off the discussion about mapper issues, which > I will call "COMPLAINT'. If you want to skip this section for my > opinion/commentary about the issue at large, you can scroll down to "MY TWO > CENTS" > > COMPLAINT > Since my personal situation apparently lit up a bit of a firestorm, I'd > just like to bring to light exactly what happened in my situation. In the > spirit of keeping this entire discussion public, my request for him to > refrain from editing things that were already edited was such. > > > >On 2012-10-31 07:06:15 UTC homeslice60148 wrote: This is the second time > you have ruined hours of work that I have put into my map with bots. > Please, please, stop using bots, and stay out of places you don't live in > and have no knowledge of. > > >>On 31 October 2012 at 12:00 UTC NE2 wrote: What the fuck are you > talking about? > >>On 31 October 2012 at 12:01 UTC NE2 wrote: Wait, you mean this? > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/131637116 Why the hell would you > use a secondary to get between a motorway and a primary? It's you that's > ruining work by changing every frontage road to secondary. > > >>>On 1 November 2012 at 22:26 UTC homeslice60148 wrote: From the Texas > OSM wiki: "Primary: A highway that is a main thoroughfare or links larger > cities and that does not meet any higher criteria. Business route through > cities. May be multi-lane and have a lot of business’. A very busy and > important road. 55mph or greater speed limit except in urban areas. In > rural areas probably has shoulders or breakdown lanes. This covers State > Highways. > > >>>Secondary: Urban arterials that connect to higher highway networks. > Rural highways that connects smaller cities although may not be the most > traveled route. Less busy than Primary with fewer business’. Blvd, Ave, > most city thorough fairs, freeway feeder roads in urban areas, hard paved, > striped, 2 or more lanes in each direction of travel, may or may not be > divided and/or one-way, 45-55mph or greater. May or may not have shoulders. > Grade crossings controlled by traffic lights with few if any stop signs." > > >>>By this very specific definition, the very vast majority of access > roads in Texas are secondary roads. I do not expect you to know this, since > you do not live in the state, and from the situation we had together in > January, you have not read (or have read and disregarded) the common > practices of mapping in this area. The road level system DOES NOT mean that > the road between a motorway and a primary MUST be a primary. This is nearly > the exact same problem we had in January. > > For those who do not know, there was another issue we had together in > January where NE2 went around the entire state Farm-To-Market highway > system and used bots to delete a MASSIVE amount of information (some edits > were so severe that he just left a ref number and a highway tag) with no > regard to the standard of tagging roads as per the Texas wiki. That's where > it stands as of this minute. > > > Now that's gone over, time for "MY TWO CENTS" > > It is my personal opinion that the "Open" part of OSM is a double-edged > sword. The ease of data entry and usage, along with the flexibility of the > project as a whole are the core of what OSM is about. Since mapping with > OSM involves following "guidelines" more than actual rules or laws, there > is no system of "punishment". Just to be clear, I am NOT advocating a > system of justice, or laws, but there does seem to be a need for > regulation. However, the more regulation and enforcement that are involved, > the more restrictive the system becomes. Some of my ideas: > > -Gradually "unlocking" the world to new users (Since OSM is about mapping > the areas we know best, start with a fixed radius around the person's home. > This could involve a tutorial of sorts, such as, "This is your street. Are > the spellings correct? Is there a speed limit? Is it lit at night? Are > there houses or other buildings? Are there addresses?" etc. After a certain > amount of time/tutorials passed, the amount of data, or the ability to > delete data could be unlocked by the user? I would have no idea as to how > to rank the validity of these new edits, but maybe linking them to a > "buddy" existing user with experience? This would promote local community > building, and improve not only the quality of the map, but the quantity. > > -Having a system of moderators based on areas of knowledge. (Say in > descending order of power, "Local resident, former resident, tourist," etc. > I will use myself for this example. I currently live in San Antonio, TX but > I have lived in Madison, Wisconsin. Should I edit an area in Madison, an > "alert" of the changeset could be sent to a local resident to review and > can give feedback to my username. Their review would not be an > accept/reject level, but if the edit is ranked very poor, this could be > noted in the offending user's profile. There could also be restrictions > based on deleting/editing existing data vs. adding new data based on the > person's "knowledge" of the area. This could also limit large-scale data > edits or changesets with very large bounding boxes to those who are > trusted/verified by admins. On the downside, this opens the door to rogue > admins and or moderators, but maybe there could be additional safeguards > put in place. > > -However, none of this could be possible without a system of user ranking. > Feedback, types/validity of edits, ability to "buddy" users, edit larger > areas, etc. could all be rolled into this. There would need to be some sort > of leveling system built into this. > > I've been thinking about this for a long time, but have not brought them > up because the need for them didn't seem to be there. However, with my > email to the US group earlier this week showed that I am not necessarily > alone in thinking that there needs to be some sort of additional levels of > moderators. I realize that most of my ideas are impossible to implement, > especially retroactively. Part of the beauty of OSM is that the mappers are > mostly self-policing, but the ease of editing large amounts of data has > shown that a few number of people can have a large impact. > > Sam Iacullo > > San Antonio, TX > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Clay Smalley University of Texas at Austin, Class of 2015
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us