> On Tuesday 22 September 2015, henk van der laan wrote: > > Over the past couple of month some big changes in the rendering of > > the map have been made. > > These changes do not improve the readabillity of the map, and despite > > it's good intentions do not seem to take into account the basics of > > map rendering, but rather look at tagging and decide on that. > > Not sure if you are aware of this but with that introductory statement > you essentially say that everyone who contributed to the standard style > in the last months has done a poor job and essentially is incompetent. > > That certainly is an opinion that can be respected but you need to > expect that quite a few people will disagree here which is not a very > good basis regarding the rest of your critique. > > Long story short: development of the standard style is open to > everyone - if there are things you would like to improve and feel you > can do better you are welcome to contribute. There are several open > issues in the bug tracker already dealing with problems introduced by > recent changes and you are welcome to make specific suggestions how to > improve things there. But just stating a sweeping 'every change is > bad' without showing that you have considered the reasons why this > change has been made in the first place does not make you very > believable.
Stating that something is a bad job by someone does not mean that person is incompetent. That is merely an interpretation of the person(s) involved fighting of critique. You may find it a harsh thing to say, but yes: I think it's a bad job. Not every change is bad, but than again a change is not per definition good. Only change for the sake of change is bad per definition. And I've considered many of the reasons and found few really convincing for the changes made. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
