> No matter how you put it the style still has a strong European > and even British focus which is an issue with OSM being an > international project IMO.
And also focus toward major cities. There is an obvious fix - people outside UK/Europe/major cities making PRs, submitting issues about problems that nobody reported before and commenting on issue tracker (it is much easier to change something as PR is active, useful reports/comments are also helpful). 2014-12-12 13:35 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann <[email protected]>: > > On Thursday 11 December 2014, Andy Allan wrote: > > > > >From that it would be a reasonable conclusion to think that I'm > > > being > > > > a bottleneck on the development - well, perhaps I am. > > I don't think there is a serious bottleneck in the merging of changes to > go active in the main map. The problem is not bandwidth but latency. > > This might be to some part due to the order in which you work through > changes. You could try doing it the opposite way, working on the > oldest changes first. This would ensure things do not get stuck at the > bottom of the pile for a long time (there are quite a few pull requests > active at the moment for example that have been waiting for at least > the past three releases). > > > So I pose a question that's most pressing on my mind - should the > > other maintainers be merging PRs without me reviewing them first? > > Will this lead to a better result? > > Well - the job of the gatekeeper of the rolled out style is essentially > an administrative task and having an own opinion on styling is probaly > more a disadvantage for this. ;-) > > Another side of the matter i already pointed out occasionally is that > everyone has specific priorities and no matter how well meaning you are > these go into decisions when making judgements about merging a change > or not. No matter how you put it the style still has a strong European > and even British focus which is an issue with OSM being an > international project IMO. > > Mainly for these reasons i would much support opening up the active > style for more people to immediately commit to although i also see the > risk of a significant loss in style coherence and ultimately map > quality over time with that approach. The dominance of technical > considerations over design aspects and cartographical arguments is also > likely an issue. Having a two stage process with a separate map for > testing before deployment in the main map would really help here i > think. > > The lack of a central test environment could be mitigated by trying to > get a larger number of people from different regions to test changes in > their local test environment on areas they are familiar with and weigh > in with their assessment of the changes. But people will only be > motivated to do this if they see their contributions have an effect. > > And i would like to emphasize again the need for a more systematic > followup on rolled out changes - quite independent from the exact mode > of operation. For a developer it is always more interesting to work on > something new but it would be good to establish that the work on a > style change does not end with it being deployed. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
