Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> I admit I am not convinced that it addresses the problem.
>
> I think that problem in in specific validator rule that is clearly
> unwanted by general community* and it does not matter when and how it
> appears.

Yes, i agree for this particular situation.

The idea was more as an example that it is not necessary to deploy iD in 
exactly the configuration it is released with on osm.org.

I also think the label "upgrade the tags" is highly misleading for this 
kind of function and the idea of having a button to manually trigger 
this feature but not being transparent about what this actually does is 
not a very good one.  But indeed this is somwhat sidestepping the core 
issue here.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27 May 2019, 19:38 by o...@imagico.de:

> On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>>
>> By default iD actively suggests to
>> - change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
>> - objects selected by user during editing
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to only touch 
> features modified by the user in the version deployed on osm.org?
>
So that it would change from

- user selects object, info panel including "upgrade the tags" button appears
- user edits tags/geometry

to

- user selects object, info panel appears
- user edits tags/geometry
- "upgrade the tags" button appears

?

I admit I am not convinced that it addresses the problem.

I think that problem in in specific validator rule that is clearly unwanted by 
general
community* and it does not matter when and how it appears.



* I was adding highway=footway to man_made=pier and public_transport=platform 
mapped
as lines long before iD introduced this change but I still think that 
complaints about this rule
should be at least treated seriously

For adding highway=footway on public_transport=platform areas I disagree both 
with how it
was introduced and with rule itself
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> By default iD actively suggests to
> - change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
> - objects selected by user during editing

Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to only touch 
features modified by the user in the version deployed on osm.org?

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27 May 2019, 17:51 by o...@imagico.de:

>  actively modifying features the mapper has not touched in 
> their fundamental semantics.  As already hinted i know too little about 
> how iD works to specifically say something about how it fits in here.
>
By default iD actively suggests to 
- change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
- objects selected by user during editing

iD settings can be changed to suggest changes to all downloaded objects
(like JOSM)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Dave F via talk]

On 27/05/2019 16:26, Frederik Ramm wrote:


AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" and didn't
hear anyone complain about that.
That's a bit different. "created-by" was, err,,, created by the 
developers of the API/editors. Contributors never added it themselves.


It hasn't really been dropped, just transferred from individual entities 
to changeset meta data.


DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 27 May 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >
> > it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to
> > unconsciously perform automated edits could and should be blocked
> > from write access to the API and accordingly should not be
> > available on osm.org.
>
> I guess that in cases where it's a widely accepted community decision
> instead of "fuck you stinking mailing list pseudo community, I'll do
> what I please and anyway my friends all like it", it can be
> acceptable. AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by"
> and didn't hear anyone complain about that.

There is of course a difference between silently dropping obsolete tags 
evidently containing no geographic information when editing a feature 
anyway and actively modifying features the mapper has not touched in 
their fundamental semantics.  As already hinted i know too little about 
how iD works to specifically say something about how it fits in here.

I don't think a mechanical edit should be considered acceptable without 
discussion because it is obviously beneficial.  If that is the case the 
discussion can be short but it still should happen - if for no other 
reason than as a safety check to avoid errors.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 5/27/19 12:58, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> * Automated Edits code of conduct
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)
>> : You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway
>> to platforms. This is an automated edit.

> it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to unconsciously 
> perform automated edits could and should be blocked from write access 
> to the API and accordingly should not be available on osm.org. 

I guess that in cases where it's a widely accepted community decision
instead of "fuck you stinking mailing list pseudo community, I'll do
what I please and anyway my friends all like it", it can be acceptable.
AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" and didn't
hear anyone complain about that.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Jo]

For a very long time I have been trying to adopt the public_transport
scheme. After several years of asking it would be rendered on its own
without the need for highway=bus_stop tags, I'm giving up on it and came to
the conclusion that

highway=bus_stop on nodes next to the highway

and

highway=platform / railway=platform on dedicated OSM ways, where actual
platforms exist

works just fine.

This has been discussed on the public transport list very recently, but as
usual, without any resolution one way or the other. Status quo rules.

It is disingenious of iD developers to muddy the waters further though.

Polyglot

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:55 PM Dave F via talk 
wrote:

> On 27/05/2019 12:23, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform
> >
> > This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform
>
> Most of the public_transport=* tags are pure duplicates of existing,
> more popular tags. They add nothing to the OSM database except confusion
> & errors.
>
> Even the person who conceived the scheme admits it didn't work &
> recommending it be dropped.
>
> It's disappointing & frustrating to see the iD editor promote them with
> the inaccurate claim of "Some tags change over time and should be updated."
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Dave F via talk]

On 27/05/2019 12:23, Phil Wyatt wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform

This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform


Most of the public_transport=* tags are pure duplicates of existing, 
more popular tags. They add nothing to the OSM database except confusion 
& errors.


Even the person who conceived the scheme admits it didn't work & 
recommending it be dropped.


It's disappointing & frustrating to see the iD editor promote them with 
the inaccurate claim of "Some tags change over time and should be updated."


DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Mai 2019 um 15:23 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :

>   Occasionally there are examples of people
> accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally
> do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely
> explain why in this particular case the suggestion isn't a good one.



As the iD editor is promoted as and often used by newbies (not
exclusively), it is no wonder those newbies accept improved suggestions,
they do not have the experience and knowledge which would be required to
judge about such things, and as they are on the "official page" it looks to
them like an "official suggestion".




>
> You'd also need to ask the user whether they were prompted to make an
> "improvement" by the editor or whether they added it manually (speaking
> personally I'd usually draw railway platforms as areas and I can
> certainly think of places where I'd draw a linear footpath along as
> well).



After looking at some features with both tags in my area, actually only
very few were from iD and added recently (yet), the rest (very few in
total) had been added years before. I refrained from commenting the new
changesets, because it was new users and I didn't want to scare them away:

Complaining about an edit of theirs which was suggested to them by "us",
would have either looked as if we were fighting in the inside (left hand
vs. right hand), or as if this was a completely chaotic project (unclear
how to act), or at least one where as soon as you contribute you would have
to justify yourself against some selfappointed block warden (de:Blockwart)

I agree there are cases where a hint can make sense but still requires
judgement, but our main front page editor shouldn't suggest automatic
tagging improvements which are rejected by the majority of the community,
and not even those where a significant number of people rejects them.

Commenting the changesets and creating noise with new users is not the way
to go, as polite as you may be able to write. We might excuse to them for
reverting this part of their edit, at most ;-)

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/05/2019 12:08, Jo wrote:

And the disease is spreading:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd

I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?

Suggestions about tag improvements by an editor are not a new thing - 
JOSM has had them for ages.  Occasionally there are examples of people 
accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally 
do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely 
explain why in this particular case the suggestion isn't a good one.  
You'd also need to ask the user whether they were prompted to make an 
"improvement" by the editor or whether they added it manually (speaking 
personally I'd usually draw railway platforms as areas and I can 
certainly think of places where I'd draw a linear footpath along as 
well).  The emphasis has to be on "politely" - users accepting an 
editor's suggestion can't be blamed if they don't know the backstory.


Separately to that I've occasionally mentioned places where JOSM's 
suggestions don't seem right and the issue has always been addressed 
immediately by the JOSM developers, and I've never seen a response along 
the lines of 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649 , 
for example - they are more professional than that.   I therefore can't 
suggest, as I would with JOSM, to contact the developers about it directly.


It's perhaps also worth mentioning that I can think of at least one 
example where a particular editor was "effectively banned"* due to 
serious shortcomings.  In that particular case the bug was to rewrite 
all longitude values with a fixed value so that everything touched moved 
to a ring around the planet.  Clearly the current issue with iD is not 
even close to that level of seriousness, so "direct action" against any 
iD edits would be both unwarranted and out of proportion.


Note that this is intended to be an answer to "what can I, as an 
individual mapper do about this creeping data problem".  Answers 
involving "write a replacement for iD" fail somewhat the short-term 
practicality test.


Best Regards,

Andy

(writing in an entirely personal capacity)

* Specifically by looking for all edits by it and reverting them and 
taking other action to make users and the developers aware of the problem.




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Mateusz Konieczny]

In case that this is an undesirable wrong tagging one may request JOSM dev
to add validator rule fixing this.

You may also propose worldwide bot edit reverting such changes.

(note, I am not sure whatever either is a good idea, it is one of reasons why I 
did neither)

27 May 2019, 13:08 by winfi...@gmail.com:

> And the disease is spreading:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd 
>
> I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Phil Wyatt]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform

 

This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Jo [mailto:winfi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 9:04 PM
To: Richard Fairhurst
Cc: OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

 

I went to check a platform tagged as

 

highway=platform

 

which is perfectly alright.

 

iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:

 

public_transport=platform

bus=yes

 

Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:

 

highway=footway

 

So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.

 

Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect, 
complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.

 

I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to listen to 
the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.

 

Oh well,

 

Back to JOSM for me.

 

Jo

 

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Jo]

And the disease is spreading:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd

I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?

Jo

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:03 PM Jo  wrote:

> I went to check a platform tagged as
>
> highway=platform
>
> which is perfectly alright.
>
> iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:
>
> public_transport=platform
> bus=yes
>
> Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:
>
> highway=footway
>
> So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.
>
> Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect,
> complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.
>
> I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to
> listen to the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.
>
> Oh well,
>
> Back to JOSM for me.
>
> Jo
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Hain wrote:
>> > Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
>> > Write a new online editor from scratch.
>> > Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.
>>
>> Please stop trolling.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from:
>> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Jo]

I went to check a platform tagged as

highway=platform

which is perfectly alright.

iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:

public_transport=platform
bus=yes

Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:

highway=footway

So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.

Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect,
complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.

I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to listen
to the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.

Oh well,

Back to JOSM for me.

Jo

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Andrew Hain wrote:
> > Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> > Write a new online editor from scratch.
> > Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.
>
> Please stop trolling.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 27 May 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
> had exactly 0 effect.
>
> As I see it we can choose between
>
> [...]

I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has.  
I in particular see:

* a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly 
what is being released without creating and maintaining a complete 
fork.
* a wide range of options for regulatory measures, not only on 
the 'developer behaviour regulation' front (which i have serious 
trouble with) but also on the technical level by requiring certain 
modularization so things like presets or validation rules can be easily 
replaced or disabled by deployments.

On a general note and w.r.t. what Markus wrote:

> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)
>: You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway
> to platforms. This is an automated edit.

it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to unconsciously 
perform automated edits could and should be blocked from write access 
to the API and accordingly should not be available on osm.org.  I don't 
know if iD in its current configuation does this but this seems so 
obvious and self evident as a principle that it is not even necessary 
to codify this into written policy IMO.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Phil Wyatt]

I cant see how a new team of developers would help - they would be operating
under the same rules (which I suspect are pretty vague) as all the current
developers. Who at the moment dictates which editors can be used at osm.org?
If they don't like ID, they can get it turned off.

 

If the ID editor is the most popular it's probably for a good reason - it's
easy to use for newbies and intermediate mappers.

 

If the tags are wrong, ambiguous, duplicated or poorly defined then I
suggest fix the tagging system first so it's clear for all developers.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Hain [mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 8:27 PM
To: Simon Poole; talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway
to railway/public_transport=platform

 

Also:

 

Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.

 

Write a new online editor from scratch.

 

Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

 

--

Andrew

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Wiklund Johan wrote:
> Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
> built 
> routing engines.

Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification?

OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's
multimodal and you can't do multimodal routing if you can't navigate the
platforms. Graphhopper does.

I could list about 20 editor tagging improvements that would make foot and
bike routing better, and this isn't one of them.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Andrew Hain]

Also:

Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.

Write a new online editor from scratch.

Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

--
Andrew

From: Simon Poole 
Sent: 27 May 2019 11:07
To: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to 
railway/public_transport=platform

The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.

As I see it we can choose between

- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)

- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)

- put in place a code of conduct for developers that want their code
deployed on osm.org and other OSMF sites with minimum requirements on
transparency and community interaction (the irony of this is not lost on
me, and it is not clear who would enforce this)

- deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

- engaging with the respective employers and ask them to rectify the
situation (obviously there's a big hole in this one)

That's probably about it.

Simon

Am 23.05.2019 um 18:11 schrieb Markus:
> Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
>
> I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
> (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
> here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
>
>> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
>> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.
> While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
> put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
> opinions.
>
>> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.
> So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
> i expect the iD developers to follow it.
>
> Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:
>
> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
> You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
> platforms. This is an automated edit.
> * Map what's on the ground
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
> A platform is not a footway.
> * Don't map for the renderer
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
> It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.
>
>> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
>> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
>> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
>> routable.
> If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
> then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
> the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
> I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
> Wikibase (data items).
>
> I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
> that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Simon Poole]

The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.

As I see it we can choose between

- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)

- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)

- put in place a code of conduct for developers that want their code
deployed on osm.org and other OSMF sites with minimum requirements on
transparency and community interaction (the irony of this is not lost on
me, and it is not clear who would enforce this)

- deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

- engaging with the respective employers and ask them to rectify the
situation (obviously there's a big hole in this one)

That's probably about it.

Simon

Am 23.05.2019 um 18:11 schrieb Markus:
> Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
>
> I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
> (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
> here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
>
>> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread 
>> just to express disagreement is not very helpful.
> While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
> put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
> opinions.
>
>> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.
> So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
> i expect the iD developers to follow it.
>
> Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:
>
> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
> You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
> platforms. This is an automated edit.
> * Map what's on the ground
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
> A platform is not a footway.
> * Don't map for the renderer
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
> It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.
>
>> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is 
>> because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect 
>> mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are 
>> routable.
> If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
> then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
> the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
> I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
> Wikibase (data items).
>
> I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
> that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk