> I have received praises on OSM-RU channel, Wow, within the large number of active mappers there is a very broad range of opinions. One or two people saying this is wonderful is not a consensus within OpenStreetMap that it is.
Within OpenStreetMap the authority is normally accepted to be the local mappers and the DWG. There are processes to follow for automated edits. I seem to recall you drawing a comparison between your work and MapRoulette. MapRoulette identifies problems and has mappers resolve them one at a time. My understanding is it does not make changes or add anything to the database. Your approach seems to be quite different and I don't think the two can be compared. My understanding is you have not followed these processes and have ignored the wishes of local mappers. This is not a personal attack these are issues and concerns. Could you be so kind as to address the issues and concerns raised please. Especially not taking into account the wishes of the local communities when expressed. Many Thanks Cheerio John On 15 October 2017 at 08:04, Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andu, with all due respect, you are misrepresenting things. I have > received praises on OSM-RU channel, and that's where I got my first bug > reports and suggestions that were quickly fixed. The current mailing > thread also received a praise from Steve. I have received a private email > explicitly praising this tool, some twitter feedback, plus, some general > encouragements for my efforts. So, despite some vocal people on one side of > the issue, claiming to represent "the community" is not accurate, as others > have expressed opposing views. Thus, it is not as uniform as you try to > portray it, but rather, as any other conflict, deserves a thoughtful > approach to attempt to balance goals of everyone, and to find a valuable > compromise. > > At the same time, judging from the fact that someone did not feel > comfortable emailing to the group, there seems to be significant toxicity > and bullying going on. There was a number of personal attacks, which to me > seems to be a violation of our communication policies, and which I > deliberately ignore. So no, I see some people in the community may support > it, but do not want to participate in such a violent discussion. When > someone is foaming at the mouth, people tend to stay away, rather than > engage in a constructive discussion. > > Luckily, there has been some valuable feedback too, and I hope our > community will be mature enough to provide more broadly. For example, > Simon was very clear and explicit about the exact deficiencies he objected > to - something that I attempted to rectify, and will continue to improve > on. Some other remarks, despite being presented in a bad form, lead me to > more good fixes such as a mandatory high zoom before editing. I am clearly > continuing to participate in the discussion, and try to abstain from > discussing PEOPLE, but instead concentrate on a specific IDEA being > presented in this thread, and the specific PROBLEMS it tries to solve. As a > volunteer. Without any financial benefit from anything I do. Same as many > other participants on this channel, regardless of their views. Trying to > maneuver between the abstract philosophy, various believes of what is the > "right thing to do", and the specific problems and solutions. > > P.S. @mmd, sorry for not replying earlier. I suspect you meant it as an > "ad absurdum" argument. Thing is, Wikidata does use wiki pages to store bot > states. Mostly bots generate various talk pages and templates, and users > sometimes modify those talk pages to control the bots. Yet, this tool has > nothing to do with Wikidata, so it is a moot point to discuss storing OSM > metadata there. See my reply about the "nobot" tag. I think it would help > to partially heal the bot-nobot divide, as it gives control over each > object to editors, and allows mini-bots. > > And one last thing. Something that has helped me many times to find > COMPROMISE in a forum discussion. When replying, let's try to sum up the > opponent's position and the reasons for that position, and explain why you > think it is incorrect. Perhaps we should learn from the high school debate > class? Sorry for the long email. > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:38 AM, ajt1...@gmail.com <ajt1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 15/10/2017 11:04, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> >>> On Sunday 15 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: >>> >>>> [...] I was following up on the Christoph Hormann's >>>>>> idea of the "bot=no" tag, to "allow mappers to opt out of bot >>>>>> edits on a case-by-case basis." >>>>>> >>>>> No, you were not, likely because you misunderstood my suggestion >>>>> which is likely because you don't get how OpenStreetMap is working >>>>> overall. >>>>> >>>>> I would strongly advise you to reconsider your whole approach to >>>>> OpenStreetMap and to interacting with the OpenStreetMap community. >>>>> >>>> Christoph, kindly explain, instead of making snide remarks. You have >>>> not added to the discussion, but instead raised the level of toxicity >>>> of this channel even further. Note that several people have already >>>> noted that this channel is toxic and refused to participate in it, >>>> rather than being productive and beneficial to everyone involved. >>>> >>> I rest my case. >>> >>> >> Yuri, >> >> In English there is a common phrase "which part of **** *** do you not >> understand" (expletive removed because people offended by such words may be >> reading). >> >> This thread https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/ >> thread.html#79145 currently has replies from 9 people. 1 is asking a >> question but all other replies are entirely negative (including comments >> such as "I'm appalled" and "that isn't acceptable behaviour"). >> >> Christoph Hormann's comment above is not a snide remark; it's entirely >> reasonable based on your actions so far - for an example of that see Tomas' >> reply earlier in the thread, or indeed almost any of the other interactions >> that you've had with the OSM community. >> >> Best Regards, >> Andu >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
