Dec 13, 2018, 1:53 PM by ajt1...@gmail.com:
> On 11/12/2018 13:45, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct according to the
>> rules that OSM imposed on itself.
>>
>> I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It
sent from a phone
> On 13. Dec 2018, at 13:53, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday I think
> that it's only fair to let them get their feet under the table first, but
> there clearly will be pressure from the community once they have
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
[...]
The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct according to the rules
that OSM imposed on itself.
I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will certainly be
interesting to see how all the controversial areas will be judged from
Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 11:52 Uhr schrieb Guillaume Rischard <
openstreet...@stereo.lu>:
> Hi Rory and fellow members,
>
> I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my
> manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken
> transparently. The detailed reasoning
Hi,
There are map services (TomTom I believe) which have a parameter, something
like "politics" with possible values China, India and Pakistan, and of course
google does same for end-users. As far as I can think of more or less every
single country has some details what they feel to be mapped
> Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough.
> So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders
and territories within the OSM database itself
agree, ( sorry, I am not good at communication. :))
as I wrote:
Imho: an important part of the solution:
-
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu wrote:
> TLDR: We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
> year!( Less community fighting - more working on the real problems! )
>
Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use
3rd-party data
W dniu 11.12.2018 o 14:59, Imre Samu pisze:
> Imho: there are other core values
> So we need to find a global optimum - and it is not easy.
I agree. Thanks for checking our foundations. In day to day operations
it's not possible to know every rule in OSM and it's not even needed,
since some
>
> And here you are disqualifying yourself from the discussion because you
> essentially reject the possibility that OSM can function as a cross
> cultural, cross ideology project to document the verifiable geography of
> the world. If you don't think that is possible and think that OSM when
>
>https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources.
:)
Imho: there are other core values
core1. *"We want to make the best map data set of the world"* ( With
Ukraine! - I don't want an OSMUkraine-Exit forking OSM , like
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard
wrote:
> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no
> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea,
> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box.
All of these statements are
I agree with what Guillaume says:
"...how important it is that decisions are taken transparently. The
detailed reasoning behind any decision must be published without delay."
That in my opinion is key. There is no wrong or right in decision making as
long as it can be explained (and reverted
Hi Rory and fellow members,
I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my manifesto how
important it is that decisions like this are taken transparently. The detailed
reasoning behind this decision must be published without delay.
The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last
13 matches
Mail list logo
