Bryce Nesbitt writes:
Again, all I see is a well meaning user who very clearly is not yet
absorbed OSM culture.
There is no belligerence, just a bit of confusion.
It is easy to slip into misunderstanding. Perhaps such gaffes can be
chalked up to a sort of culture clash. These usually end being minor
affairs, quickly gotten over after some confusion removal. Dialog,
instruction, consensus, collaboration...these and more are truly
important.
If this particular user wants to map planned and under-construction
features (and clearly he or she does), there's a way to bring that
energy into OSM and make it productive.
OSM is used today to posit proposed features of present and future
infrastructure. The networks (road, bicycle, hiking...) and tools
allow and encourage exactly this, allowing very public discourse to
thrive.
In a sense, OSM is a matrix in which we live: today's incredible
plastic map. With colored lines and little POIs it describes a
version of the world around us. With dashed lines, it shows what is
under construction as well as what is under consideration. OSM is a
form of public discourse, with the map the conversation.
Conversations are dialogs, "multi-logs," not monologues. This map
and conversation are evolving right now.
OSM has a peer review process in place right now. It is called
"watch the map, help it evolve, grow it as you can, if somebody does
something odd/wrong/different, dialog with them." And then, take it
from there.
We're all grown ups here.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
