Am 07.04.2019 um 18:12 schrieb Clifford Snow: > The original post on talk-de really seemed to be complaining that the > development staff is paid. Maybe what we should be asking is "Should > OSMF fund development of tools?"
I think that isn't really a correct interpretation of the original concern raised. It was more (paraphrasing so I apologize if I'm mangling things too much): the default editor on osm.org is in a privileged position and gives who ever is in control of it has substantial power over the project, this has always been the case and isn't something new (as Richard has pointed out). The concern raised was that there are no real checks and balances (not even the need to finance a living by a day job as Richard had to do) wrt that power. Tagging decision are what the following discussion jumped on, but I don't really think that is so critical, there was a phase when there was a couple of weird decisions, but in general these have always (just as with JOSM) tended to affect low use tags. In the grand scheme of things not really a big deal. I would be more concerned about things being added to iD's functionality that look like "good ideas" but haven't gone through a proper critical (non-technical) review as in "do we actually want this feature and what are the consequences of adding it". Two particularly problematic "recent" additions: recording the last position in the walk through and recording the number of warnings that have been ignored in changesets. It doesn't really matter if this was a requests by the unknown entities holding the purse strings, or if Bryan and Quincy simply thought them up over a beer or similar, they still should have been discussed in a wider (aka not just the OSM-US bubble) audience before the first line of code was written. Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk