Am 20.09.2012 22:38, schrieb Christian Rogel:
So, as we have a DWG a making tremendous efforts for maintaining a
good policy
for the data (including the boring chase of proprietary ones), it may
happen and it
will happen more and more that a projected decision exceed the field
of the data
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
I believe one of the issues here is the categorization of the separate
account requirement as political, when I suspect most would see it as a
purely administrative/technical matter and the textual change as a
clarification
2012/9/19 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de
On 19.09.2012 11:22, Christian Quest wrote:
We're voting proposed tag scheme.
... or not. Frequently nowadays a new value or scheme is invented w/o
voting. No statement by myself whether I think this is good process or
not...
So these
On jeudi 20 septembre 2012, Marc SIBERT wrote:
The complete
ignorance of any contact (threre have been two or three tries) was the
reason for the (short term) block, not the disregard of the guidelines.
In fact I *did* answer twice, in March September. I explain my point of
view and the
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
We can get back to the topic of governance and discussion about those laws and
who decide them, and how.
Or just get back to fixing the process in the first place?
SO we have less chance of misinterpreting the 'guidelines'?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Le 20 sept. 2012 à 13:22, Lester Caine a écrit :
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
We can get back to the topic of governance and discussion about those laws
and
who decide them, and how.
Or just get back to fixing the process in the first place?
SO we have less chance of misinterpreting the
I believe there is some misunderstanding of the relationship between OSM
and OSMF.
Am 20.09.2012 16:36, schrieb Christian Rogel:
Le 20 sept. 2012 à 13:22, Lester Caine a écrit :
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
We can get back to the topic of governance and discussion about those laws and
who
Simon Poole wrote:
Yes, the development in the area of Open Data poses a serious challenge to OSM.
I suspect that the attitude of large parts of the community is that OGD is a
good thing, however I'm also fairly sure that there is no community consensus
that OSM should aspire to import
Le 20 sept. 2012 à 18:59, Simon Poole a écrit :
.
While a more top down organisation of OSM a la Wikipedia or other
organisations is imaginable, there has never been a community consensus that
such a step would be desirable (if anything it is exactly the opposite). So
while the OSMF
On 2012-09-19 05:36, Willi wrote:
I really don't like the attitude expressed by several people here in
response to this subject and which is already contained in the
subject
itself OSMF/DWG governance.
Governance. There's no governance. DWG is a group and everybody is
free to
join it. The
Pieren wrote:
The one who never made a mistake in JOSM can be the first to
throw a stone.
*waves*
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-OSMF-DWG-governance-tp5725810p5726047.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list
On 09/19/2012 01:58 AM, Marc Sibert wrote:
That's why we need of help of the machines... asta la vista, baby !
No, that is why you need more contributors. Preferably those who know
what is actually there in reality. Not people who only remotely map
stuff from secondary sources.
--
---
m.v.g.,
Pieren wrote:
Finally, he decided that the best
solution to clean-up the mess was to delete the previous buildings
dataset and import the new one. But again, his first intention was to
upload the delta only.
I will be the first to admit to being a little lax in adding comments to my
commits,
complaining about the quality of his imports.
The user was contacted, he didn't react as I understood. There for he
was short time blocked. That's a very fair and fine reaction from
the DWG. The user was not banned or something, just blocked for short
time to gain his attention.
And: why
Hi,
On 09/19/2012 12:38 AM, Christian Quest wrote:
For me a mandatory rule on which someone bases a block decision must be
something decided publicly and shared with the community, and clearly
published/announced... and none of these has taken place here.
Are you saying that we should have
guig...@free.fr wrote:
Please show me that I'm making jugement mistake, and show me that our
work, after beeing uncertain by licence, isn't threatened by
centralistic, autoritative, english only person who can set live or dead by
non community based decisions.
There is a lot of good support
2012/9/19 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
Pieren wrote:
The one who never made a mistake in JOSM can be the first to
throw a stone.
*waves*
cheers
Richard
Richard !
As you're joining this topic, can you explain why you changed the
guidelines in the wiki to make the dedicated
2012/9/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Hi,
On 09/19/2012 12:38 AM, Christian Quest wrote:
For me a mandatory rule on which someone bases a block decision must be
something decided publicly and shared with the community, and clearly
published/announced... and none of these has taken
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Are you saying that we should have had a vote on the wiki, or what? Who
would have been eligible to vote? And are you at the same time saying that
changing a policy on the wiki is not clearly published?
To progress a
Christian Quest wrote:
As you're joining this topic, can you explain why you changed
the guidelines in the wiki to make the dedicated account a
requirement and not a recommendation anymore ?
As a few people have already said (Michael, Frederik, Simon etc.) this was
basically codifying
On 19/09/2012 12:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[..]
Thanks for the level-headed recapitulation - looks like we are moving
forward.
Firstly, the status of the import guidelines needs to become less ambiguous.
At present we have three largely overlapping policies ('Mechanical Edit
Policy',
Pieren wrote:
But let the local community decides when and who. And for that, we
need to contact people in their speaking language, not in English,
either through a local representative or e.g. standard messages
previously translated. Then check with the local community if or what
goes wrong
2012/9/18 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org:
On 09/18/2012 05:42 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase
the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase
the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines
without addresses just don't really help with anything)
2012/9/19 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org:
the cadastre integration process represents such an amount of manual
processing that some of those who did it took understandable personal
offense that their work could be seen as just another botched mass import.
If their input can be taken into
2012/9/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
The size of the whole French cadastre dataset is huge. We could upload
it in a single mass import with a bot using a seperate user account as
we did for the Corine Land Cover. We could follow 100% of the import
guidelines. Trust me, we have all the
Le 19/09/2012 16:23, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
2012/9/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
The size of the whole French cadastre dataset is huge. We could upload
it in a single mass import with a bot using a seperate user account as
we did for the Corine Land Cover. We could follow 100% of the
2012/9/19 Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com:
Les données du cadastre ne peuvent former à elles seules les données
OSM. Ce qui interdit un import massif, direct et automatique
It means : You cannot make a map with only data from cadastre. You can only
mix them with other data.
Yes, and the
On 19.09.2012 09:05, guig...@free.fr wrote:
Perhaps, because the user doesn't understand English
please use google translate or any other translating tool available on
the web or use a printed dictionary or ...
Best regards,
Michael.
___
On 19.09.2012 12:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
As a few people have already said
[...]
cheers
Richard
applause for this comment! And to clarify it already now: there is no
irony behind this statement.
Best regards,
Michael.
___
talk mailing list
th == Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu writes:
ecm account block. But historical information such as the number of
ecm blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to
ecm monitor for admin abuse).
th It should be pretty obvious from browsing the block list:
th
th
On 19.09.2012 11:22, Christian Quest wrote:
We're voting proposed tag scheme.
... or not. Frequently nowadays a new value or scheme is invented w/o
voting. No statement by myself whether I think this is good process or
not...
So these hard rules are coming from nowhere ? There's no process
On Sept. 15, a french OSM contributor has been blocked because he was
not following the dedicated account for import described in the
Import Guidelines (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/238).
There was nothing armful for the data, community or the whole project
is these changesets.
This
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Christian Quest
cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote:
I'd like to have some answers because after searching the wiki, the
OSMF web site and the imports@ mailing-list archives, I could not find
any (public) discussion about the newly required
dedicated account.
Hi, I
2012/9/18 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr:
My questions are:
- Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ?
- What has been the process that lead to this major change ?
not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it
was a real problem in the past
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it
was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be
distinguished from individual and original contributions.
Excepted that in
2012/9/18 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it
was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be
distinguished from individual and
On 9/18/2012 7:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
well, not sure where this comes from and if it makes sense: I don't
see a real obstacle as email addresses are not a scarse ressource (you
get as many as you like for free), but I agree that it seems to be
better to allow the same email address
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
How does it help for distinguishing imports from original
contributions to have many small areas or small feature sets or many
small changesets? What might help is a uniform changeset comment or
component.
Hi,
I welcome a discussion about rules - which ones we need, who makes
them, who executes them. It is clear that we need *some* rules, but
until now there's no formal community process to create or amend such rules.
I'm happy to hear any suggestions that people might have. How can the
2012/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines
valid for almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the
problem? That's what the DWG is for.
Really ? According to [1]:
The *Data Working Group*
On 18/09/2012 13:42, Vincent Privat wrote:
What happened on 15th september looks like an abuse of authority to me,
as this largely exceeds the limits of the mandate given to the DWG. I
expect a clarification from the OSMF board on this point.
OK, if we're playing WikiLawyer pissing games, the
Le 18/09/2012 13:51, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines
valid for almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the
problem? That's what the DWG is for.
how many have spoken up against it? I'd expect from every mapper who
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Bennett
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
On 18/09/2012 13:42, Vincent Privat wrote:
OK, if we're playing WikiLawyer pissing games, the statement about DWG's
power says authorised, not limited to. Part of DWG's remit is to
deal with disputes, and
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I (and not only me) know that the guidelines are subjects of
arbitrary changes without a wide announce, I would read this page each time
before i'm importing a postbox from opendata ?
But look, you found the
The changes to the guidelines should be seen in the light of the original text
being very OSMish, trying to leave some wiggle room and trying not to come over
as an absolute law, but I believe the intention was always that seperate
accounts would be the norm.
In reality a large number of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The user had been contacted by DWG
beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his
account,
Sounds as a mass, uncontrolled import but is not. This user is very
active and well known in the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
The licence change process in particular turned up a large number of
(problematic and others) imports where the importers washed their hands of
their responsibility and left the clean up work to others.
The imports during the
2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG
beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his
account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the import
guidelines, using a separate import
Pieren wrote:
DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account if
they are doing small imports (even though the policy does not mention an
exception for small imports). This, however, was orders of magnitude above
small.
What is the difference between one small import
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to
import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other
way ... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from.
Pieren wrote:
Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to
import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other
way ... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from.
Seriously, if OS opens the shapefiles of all detailed
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
À : OSM talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 10h24
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pieren wrote:
DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account
Am 18.09.2012 15:55, schrieb Pieren:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
The licence change process in particular turned up a large number of
(problematic and others) imports where the importers washed their hands of
their responsibility and left the clean up
We've drifted from a question about governance to a talk about usefulness
of some kind of data in OSM which is something completely relative and
personal.
As far as I know, DWG doesn't exist to deal with usefulness of data nor
quality of contributions, but copyright infringement, vandalism and
Pierre Béland wrote:
I have often seen such arguments against imports. In Canada also, there are
contributors talking agains Canvec imports and saying we should have more fun
tracing from GPS.
We have to analyze the problems more seriously and find solutions to them. A
great work is done in
2012-09-18 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
The question of (for example of an operational problem) communication to
active mappers is a technical problem that we will have to address
at
one point in time. Either by assuring that the e-mail address remains
valid or by other technical means.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr wrote:
There are more then 500,000 contributors. How many do you think know about
the DWG group and follow his guidelines?
Those who aren't aware, and are contacted by DWG, generally switch to
an import account when they
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the
usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without
addresses
2012-09-18 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones
we do not have easy access to the source data.
As I understand it you
can view the canvec data, but is it available as an overlay in an
editor? That is the part of the jigsaw
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the
usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without
addresses
Hello,
I don't know anything about the particular import that originated this
question, and so I don't know if the following arguments specifically apply,
but I do want to comment on the issue of requiring a separate account for
imports.
IMHO, the issue is about licensing.
The contributor terms
Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major fail
in the governance of the OSMF.
I assume that the thing was not really foreseen and a loose lead was put on the
DWG group.
Everyone understands that the Board is overbooked and it could have be seen
more easy
Pierre Béland wrote:
Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones we do
not have easy access to the source data.
As I understand it you can view the canvec data, but is it available as an
overlay in an editor? That is the part of the jigsaw
that I'd like to see
On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel
christian.ro...@club-internet.fr wrote:
Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major
fail in the governance of the OSMF.
The user was messaged on 3 separate occasions between 22 March 2012
and 14 September 2012, asking
DWG != OSMF.
???
Éric
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi,
I'm in the same case of Vincent Pottier
except I has blocked without disscusion, by a very autoritative admin
my fault : I've not create a decated account for importing localized area .
But I've read the french wiki !
But I've read the import guideline ( it's not a massive import) !
But
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel
The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the
guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines )
which include that imports
Just guess who controls the servers and domain name ?
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 18 september 2012 19:56
Aan: OSM
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grant Slater
From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:11 AM
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Just to clarify this one point
On 18/09/12 at 18:29 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.
I don't think calling people robots is going to contribute to
improving the atmosphere.
If the cadastre integration was done with scripts, it would be long
done, wouldn't it?
On 18/09/12 at 17:42 +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
(yes I have
heard all the stories about everything being manually checked etc,
if you believe that, I have a couple of bridges that I would like to
sell to you).
So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar
stuff (cadastre
I have seen enough bad imports (and put significant effort into
cleaning some of them up) that I like the guidelines and wish more
people would follow them. Even if each individual clause may be a
slight inconvenience or not entirely necessary for a particular
import, I think it is worth having
Am 18.09.2012 18:04, schrieb Christian Quest:
We've drifted from a question about governance to a talk about
usefulness of some kind of data in OSM which is something completely
relative and personal.
As I pointed out, usefulness of the data is outside the scope of this
discussion.
As far
guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:11 AM
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Just
Pierre And about governance, if this community cannot manage his
contributors, who
can? We continually have new mappers, some working more or less
intensively. We
should adapt or organization to this Wikipedia like structure and try to
better
structure local communities.
I
certainly
pb == Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr writes:
pb Simon, this discussion was started to discuss about governance. We
pb only see examples of problematic imports. But the question we
pb should look at is how we can better tune or multinational /
pb multicultural organization to
Am 18.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Béland Pierre:
Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of this
thread?
The reason I even touched on this subject is that each time the cadastre
imports turn up it is somehow claimed that they are different from other
imports and should be
Hi,
On 18.09.2012 20:34, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar
stuff (cadastre integration) did not work correctly?
The user was not blocked because others did not work correctly.
He was blocked - for 24 hours - because he did not adhere to
Pieren wrote:
OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.
The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the
integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed
with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the black
sheeps
Hi,
On 18.09.2012 18:04, Christian Quest wrote:
Still no answer to my main original questions:
- who decided the import guidelines ?
It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM
have - you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the
Wiki either.
Le 18/09/2012 19:29, Grant Slater a écrit :
On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel
christian.ro...@club-internet.fr wrote:
Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major fail
in the governance of the OSMF.
The user was messaged on 3 separate occasions between
Frederik Ramm wrote:
But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that
still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a
million objects? Is it possible that a simple JOSM did not report anything
obvious takes the place of the careful review?
Le 18/09/2012 21:38, Frederik Ramm a écrit :
Hi,
...
But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then
is that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to
review carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple JOSM
did not report anything obvious
Marc Sibert wrote:
I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone have the
right to block an account and whatfor ?
The road is the place between the buildings... so I need the buildings :
Cadastre data are usefull (fully).
All points of the guideline are wrong : no
. And obviously, it is quite difficult to have the OSMF groups
accept adressing this problem.
Pierre
De : Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
À : talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 15h38
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM have
- you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the Wiki
either.
Perhaps this policy has reached its limits. And honnestly, you
Le 18/09/2012 22:17, Lester Caine a écrit :
Marc Sibert wrote:
I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone
have the
right to block an account and whatfor ?
The road is the place between the buildings... so I need the
buildings :
Cadastre data are usefull (fully).
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert m...@sibert.fr wrote:
I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore your messages.
You don't agree? You created your import account, I think?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 09/18/2012 08:36 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 18/09/12 at 18:29 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.
I don't think calling people robots is going to contribute to
improving the atmosphere.
If the cadastre integration was done
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You don't agree? You created your import account, I think?
After a block !? Wow, what a victory ! Who is next ?
Marc needed an access to the database because he is uploading surveyed
data collected remotely by another
On 09/18/2012 05:42 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase
the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines
without addresses just don't really help
Le 18/09/2012 22:56, Richard Weait a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert m...@sibert.fr wrote:
I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore your messages.
You don't agree? You created your import account, I think?
LOL ! yes I need to continue to contribute (adict
Marc Sibert wrote:
Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about
that), I just update data (replace), that is not the point why my account was
blocked !
So, what have you done in my case ?
It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr wrote:
- Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque,
though some have improved over the last year by posting open
minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I
Marc,
On 18.09.2012 21:53, Marc Sibert wrote:
I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone
have the right to block an account and whatfor ?
I think that we need import guidelines, and we need people who can block
those who don't follow the guidelines, otherwise having
Le 18/09/2012 21:13, Simon Poole a écrit :
Am 18.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Béland Pierre:
Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of
this thread?
The reason I even touched on this subject is that each time the
cadastre imports turn up it is somehow claimed that they are
Le 18/09/2012 23:24, Lester Caine a écrit :
Marc Sibert wrote:
Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody
complains about
that), I just update data (replace), that is not the point why my
account was
blocked !
So, what have you done in my case ?
It is your opinion that
...@gmail.com
À : talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 17h28
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr wrote:
- Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque
Marc Sibert wrote:
It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of
the major complaints about this type of import process.
STOP ! I do not read you after this sentence (I will do it after writing this
answer).
Now that you have read the rest of the message what is
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
