Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> writes: > On 31/08/2020 11.19, Greg Troxel wrote: >> What I objected to was not "that is your opinion; many others disagree" >> but "that is your opinion but *no one else* sees it that way". If you >> didn't really mean that, sorry for overreacting. > > Fair enough. I probably should have said something like "my > understanding is that this is contrary to the community > consensus". It's always possible that what appears *to me* to be the > community consensus looks different to others.
Interpreting consensus is indeed very hard. I think OSM has a general problem in this area, where there is discussion about something that leads to rough consensus for the range of situations in the discussion words are written down to describe this new situations arise people interpret the text to apply to the new situations, as if the text has some enormous standing, even though it describes consensus in different situations So for example, I'd agree that "access=private" generally means "only with permission", but I don't think the original discussions that led to it contemplated the folloeing notions: lack of no trespassing sign doesn't mean you 100% can't, so private isn't ok unless there is a sign. "only with permission" does not match "residential driveways are almost 'only with permission' with narrow social exceptions, so they are almost the same thing, far more than they are different" so private for an unsigned driveway is wrong. I don't think either of those points would have been agreed on had they come up in the discussion. Thus I think we as a group overly extrapolate from what we think was consensus.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
