> It is fatal for the project... It's difficult for me to see how more respect, patientience, and clarity is an existential threat to OpenStreetMap. Perhaps I'll feel different after I run through a few of these cases... Mikel
On Friday, January 6, 2017, 11:52 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: Am 06.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Mikel Maron: .. I would suggest that using this case to make your point is seriously misplaced. Reverting a broken import asap to allow for a) the guidelines to be followed, b) address technical and legal issues, is the sensible, logical and low impact and only scalable course of action. It is definitely neither unfriendly nor un-welcoming or any other adjective you want to use*. The earlier and more consistently it happens the less effort and work is lost by all participants. If there is an issue with immediate reverts, it is that, particularly in the past, there hasn't been enough. The numerous broken imports (CANVEC and broken import is essentially a synonym) that bitrot in our data and are long past any reasonable way of removing them are testimony to this. It is fatal for the project that you are creating the impression that as long as you argue long enough and feign innocence you will be able to bypass the rules and get away with whatever you want. To the contrary, we should be making it clear that not following the few, definitely not particularly arduous to adhere to, rules will result in immediate removal of the content. Simon * the participants in the referenced discussion are neither newbies, not aware of the guidelines, or any other mitigating factor, but that is not the point. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
