On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 July 2010 02:03, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: >> John Smith, your method stinks. > > What stinks specifically, you even seem to agree in your next paragraph. > >> You seem to believe that your preferred tag of emergency=fire_station, >> etc is better. Rather than adding your preferred tags and allowing the >> community to eventually realize that you are correct, you have >> _replaced_ many of these tags with your preferred tag.
I'm not agreeing with you John Smith, I'm pointing out that you failed to get community support at least in part because you failed to allow time to gain community support if any was due. > I haven't replaced anything, apart cleaning up amenity=ambulance, > amenity=Ambulance, amenity=ambulance_station and > amenity=Ambulance_station -> emergency=ambulance_station, of which > there was only 100 or so tagged. You are contradicting yourself, John Smith. You replaced amenity=ambulance_station with your emergency=ambulance_station. This is unnecessary and inappropriate without wide community support. Let's look at just two. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/387787095/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/270936829/history Did you or did you not delete amenity=ambulance_station and add emergency=ambulance_station ? You did. Could you have _added_ emergency=ambulance_station without deleting amenity=ambulance_station ? Yes, you could have. But you did not. > Which I haven't touched. Fire stations and ambulance stations are often co-located here. So you have. Also, show me your fire station change set so we can confirm this? It should be easy to find it via your change set comments? Except, of course, ... >> Your disdain for clueful change set comments appears to be nothing >> more than obfuscation. > > I don't seem to be the only one in this boat that finds changeset > comments less than useful [ ... ] Especially the way you misuse them. Hundreds of "Fixed stuff" change set comments. Hundreds. So to summarize, you deleted amenity=ambulance_station . You did so without previously ensuring that the tools that expect amenity=ambulance_station would instead deal with emergency=ambulance_station. So you removed data that users, and tools expect and replaced it with data that users and tools do not expect. Now how should the OSM community evaluate the quality of your work? Obviously, if you had done nothing at all, the users, data base and tools would be better off. More expected data in more places. So John Smith scores badly on this test. What if you had only added emergency=ambulance_station, and not deleted amenity=ambulance_station? The users, data base and tools would have been no worse off, but for a slight increase in duplication. This would have been the no harm - no foul method, but you chose not to proceed this way. What if, instead, a malicious vandal had done the same edits? That vandal, might have chosen to delete amenity=ambulance_station, just as you did, then add a completely obvious vandalism tag like vandalism=fixed_stuff As a result the vandal would have broken the expectations of users, removed expected data from the data base and caused existing tools to fail. Look! The vandal test provides results indistinguishable from your edits John Smith! >> How is the OpenStreetMap community to distinguish these edits from >> vandalism, and you from a vandal? > > Considering I didn't make any of the changes you are accusing me of I > fail to see the problem. You did. See above. My question stands. How is the community to distinguish your actions from that of a vandal? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
