Hi, Trying to get focus back on the thread topic.
Storing hints like nosquare=yes (or square=no) is not best practice of data curation on w worldwide level. At Thu., 9. Mai 2019 23:56 Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > The question was not about validating square or not square buildings, it > is about storing a hint for iDs validation mechanism permanently in OSMs > data. There is some precedent for doing so, as was mentioned in the github > issue, still it is a bit controversial and discussion when adding such a > feature should be expected. ... > I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community > feedback seriously ... This attitude needs to be changed. I expect a discussion on tags like this on a broader level (i.e. outside issue trackers) _before_ it's being implement in an editor like iD. > Which brings us back full circle to the discussion of the privileged position > of the default editor on openstreetmap.org and the related transparency ... Currently the OSMF Board is doing a community survey about topics and issues that matter to us (https://osmf.limequery.org/489698?lang=en ). I think this issue becomes one of my inputs. :Stefan Am Fr., 10. Mai 2019 um 15:47 Uhr schrieb Mikel Maron <mikel.ma...@gmail.com>: > > > I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community > > feedback seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions > > already held by the developers. Which brings us back full circle to the > > discussion of the privileged position of the default editor on > > openstreetmap.org and the related transparency (aka who is holding the > > purse strings) and the non-existent community control or even just control > > by the OSMF. > > This is a very interesting paragraph, dense with deep topics for the OSM > project. These topics should separate this from the particulars of individual > situations, because the dynamics are not unique to any single component of > the OSM data and software ecosystem. OSM has always been a muddle and > arguably one of the reasons for its success. In OSM people disagree, there's > strong points of view and discussion, sometimes it resolves, often times we > continue to muddle through. Yes, the OSMF has ultimately legal authority over > all aspects of the project but by design and history, exercises it very > selectively. And community is a very amorphous concept, with disagreements > over what that means and how it functions. > > Certainly the shape of the OSM project has outgrown the systems we > haphazardly put in place for governance and community back in 2007. It's > worth stepping back from many of the recent heated issues in the community, > and look at how they are the result of growth without intentional adaptation, > and consider what kind of approach we can take to imagine what OSM is like in > the next 15 years. > > -Mikel > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron > > > On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 5:56:14 PM EDT, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > > > Am 09.05.2019 um 23:14 schrieb Mikel Maron: > > > What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on > > www.openstreetmap.org? > > Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data > quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing > buildings. Appreciate the great work of the iD team. > > The question was not about validating square or not square buildings, it is > about storing a hint for iDs validation mechanism permanently in OSMs data. > There is some precedent for doing so, as was mentioned in the github issue, > still it is a bit controversial and discussion when adding such a feature > should be expected. > > [Rant on the massively overrated concern for buildings in the first place and > the background why people think that such a validation is necessary omitted] > > Also commend your attention to tagging issues Michael. There's certainly a > broader issue with how tags are managed in OSM. In short it's a mess all > around and is in need of a rethink. I don't think this minor issue is a "hill > to die on" however. > > I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community > feedback seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions already > held by the developers. Which brings us back full circle to the discussion of > the privileged position of the default editor on openstreetmap.org and the > related transparency (aka who is holding the purse strings) and the > non-existent community control or even just control by the OSMF. > > Simon > > > > -Mikel > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron > > > On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4:18:20 PM EDT, Michael Reichert > <osm...@michreichert.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a > discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the > Talk mailing list. > > Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called > nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not > square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. I (and later Paul > Norman) pointed out issues with the tag. I asked Quincy to discuss the > addition with the wider community beforehand. > > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6332 > > Here are the issues I pointed out in the bugtracker. At the beginning he > planned to use square=no which he later changed to nosquare=yes but this > change does not make things better: > > Although noname=yes is common, it is not that common that it can serve as > > an argument in favour of introducing unsquare=yes. In difference to > > noexit=yes, unsquare=yes and noname=yes only serve as a workaround for > > quality assurance tools. noexit=yes also conveys information for map users: > > There road ends here. > > > > Some people prefer to tag as complete as possible and add oneway=no, > > cycleway=no, lit=no etc. to any way. However, such a practice is not base > > on a broad consensus and if you dig deep enough in the history of user > > blocks in OSM, you might find blocks set due to an excessive use of > > negative binary tags. > > > > I think that iD does not need this tag and should only validate buildings > > if they have been added or modified in the current session. If doing so, > > they will be reported once which does not bother that much. > > > > Adding such a tag is not a simple change as it might seem to be and I ask > > you to discuss it with the broader community on the Tagging mailing list. > > What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on > www.openstreetmap.org? > > Best regards > > Michael > > > -- > Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten > ausgenommen) > I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
