Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Edit Attacks
>I meant he is a person that is obsessed with his map and that rivers in this >town are his and not to touch his edits. > > >>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:21 PM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us < >>talk...@openstreetmap.org >: >> >>I am not a native speaker, but as far as I know "freak" is pejorative and >>quite strong >>slur. >> >>If I am right and it has strong negative associations - please do not use it >>on mailing lists >>or elsewhere in OSM. >> >>Jun 10, 2020, 23:41 by talk...@openstreetmap.org: >>>this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with somebody >>>that was >>>calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat surface >>>and then explaned >>>how to list it as non active. >>> >>>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160 >>> >>>but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that maye >>>should not be as to the Wiki. >>>and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who thought he >>>own the map. >>> Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:26 PM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk < talk@openstreetmap.org >: Can you link any specific changeset damaging data or object that was deleted and should not be? Linked ones http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=86230442 http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=85357849 appear to not be problematic ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949#map=9/41.8982/-87.7286 is on boundary of unreasonably large relation, but it is not something very problematic) Jun 10, 2020, 15:27 by talk...@openstreetmap.org: > Last week I edited a 10 year old, 81 mile MultiPolygon with GHOSTS in >the ID editor, all I know, Someone > >took offence to that, >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85357849#map=13/42.0813/-87.8854 > >and attacked all my edits of that day, and as he moved from north to >south, every thing I did for the > >last year. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86230442 , with >things other people had already > >called me on, (discussion). so exposing my self everything I have done >in the last 24 hours is under question > >from people who are not local but in Europe. even my visit to the golf >course is in question a 7 year stale edit. > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>___ >>Talk-us mailing list >>talk...@openstreetmap.org >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Edit Attacks
I am not a native speaker, but as far as I know "freak" is pejorative and quite strong slur. If I am right and it has strong negative associations - please do not use it on mailing lists or elsewhere in OSM. Jun 10, 2020, 23:41 by talk...@openstreetmap.org: > this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with somebody > that was > calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat surface > and then explaned > how to list it as non active. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160 > > but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that maye > should not be as to the Wiki. > and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who thought he > own the map. > > >> Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:26 PM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk >> : >> >> Can you link any specific changeset damaging data >> or object that was deleted and should not be? >> >> Linked ones >> http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=86230442 >> http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=85357849 >> appear to not be problematic >> >> ( >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949#map=9/41.8982/-87.7286 >> is on boundary of unreasonably large relation, but it is not >> something very problematic) >> >> Jun 10, 2020, 15:27 by talk...@openstreetmap.org: >> >>> Last week I edited a 10 year old, 81 mile>>> MultiPolygon with GHOSTS >>> in the ID editor, all I know, Someone >>> >>> took offence to that, >>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85357849#map=13/42.0813/-87.8854 >>> >>> and attacked all my edits of that day, and as he moved from north to south, >>> every thing I did for the >>> >>> last year. >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86230442>>> , >>> with things other people had already >>> >>> called me on, (discussion). so >>> >>> exposing>>> my self everything I >>> have done in the last 24 hours is under question >>> >>> from people who are not local but in Europe. even my visit to the golf >>> course is in question a 7 year stale edit. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ___ >> 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] Edit Attacks
>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:17 PM -05:00 from John D. : > >other than breaking it up into little bits as in the wiiki. > >I got rid of the GHOSTS lines. > >>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:13 PM -05:00 from Warin < 61sundow...@gmail.com >: >> >>The Changeset: 85357849 comment is "multipolygons for the entire river offer >>no tangible advantages and not to be used." >> >>Sorry but I don't think that is a great comment. >>Is there any advantage in what you did? >>If so, what did you do and what are the advantages? >> >> >>On 11/6/20 8:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: >>>when i look at the changeset it went to the guy, but did not tell me what he >>>did. i have had that discussion >>>before with somebody else that must be listed and we agreed it was a land >>>fill, with a golf course on top it >>>is a very small part of the top of the hill only 9 holes only, >>>how many times do i have to go back and defend my edits ? how many times do >>>i have to go back >>>and redo my edits. >>>it is a very big hill that is collecting gas and making electricity. and >>>there still digging on it, and a snow hill >>>and park on the back side. >>>if the edit is wrong then add and correct not do what was done i have had 2 >>>people ask me to explane my >>>one edit and have me look what i did and correct not jump in and demand. >> >>People ask questions whey they don't understand. >> >>Explain your edits better in the change set comments, it helps others >>understand what is being done, why it is being done and the source of the >>information. I note that there is no source given ... is that a 'feature' of >>iD? In JOSM there is a source statement for each change set, if it is there >>... use it. >> >>If they understand but disagree then discussion should take place. Don't take >>it personally, most are here to help make the map better. >>> Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:53 PM -05:00 from Andy Townsend < ajt1...@gmail.com >: On 10/06/2020 22:41, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote: > this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with > somebody that was > calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat > surface and then explaned > how to list it as non active. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160 Well that's been a golf course for only a month: http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=802256628 If that isn't a golf course, I suggest you discuss that with the person who added that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84983669 . > but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that > maye should not be as to the Wiki. > and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who > thought he own the map. > As I suggested earlier, it'd definitely make sense to split up some of the huge "natural=water; water=river" areas such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949 , but anyone who does that will need to do it in such as way that it doesn't accidentally delete large lengths of riverbank (which happened last time). >>>i do not think i did, is says do not do the entire river, i broke it up into >>>little bits, and only >>>the wide parts. >>>and what ever he did the ghosts are back. Best Regards, Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>___ >>>talk mailing list >>>talk@openstreetmap.org >>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >> >>___ >>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] Edit Attacks
The Changeset: 85357849 comment is "multipolygons for the entire river offer no tangible advantages and not to be used." Sorry but I don't think that is a great comment. Is there any advantage in what you did? If so, what did you do and what are the advantages? On 11/6/20 8:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: when i look at the changeset it went to the guy, but did not tell me what he did. i have had that discussion before with somebody else that must be listed and we agreed it was a land fill, with a golf course on top it is a very small part of the top of the hill only 9 holes only, how many times do i have to go back and defend my edits ? how many times do i have to go back and redo my edits. it is a very big hill that is collecting gas and making electricity. and there still digging on it, and a snow hill and park on the back side. if the edit is wrong then add and correct not do what was done i have had 2 people ask me to explane my one edit and have me look what i did and correct not jump in and demand. People ask questions whey they don't understand. Explain your edits better in the change set comments, it helps others understand what is being done, why it is being done and the source of the information. I note that there is no source given ... is that a 'feature' of iD? In JOSM there is a source statement for each change set, if it is there ... use it. If they understand but disagree then discussion should take place. Don't take it personally, most are here to help make the map better. Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:53 PM -05:00 from Andy Townsend >: On 10/06/2020 22:41, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote: > this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with > somebody that was > calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat > surface and then explaned > how to list it as non active. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160 Well that's been a golf course for only a month: http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=802256628 If that isn't a golf course, I suggest you discuss that with the person who added that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84983669 . > but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that > maye should not be as to the Wiki. > and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who > thought he own the map. > As I suggested earlier, it'd definitely make sense to split up some of the huge "natural=water; water=river" areas such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949 , but anyone who does that will need to do it in such as way that it doesn't accidentally delete large lengths of riverbank (which happened last time). i do not think i did, is says do not do the entire river, i broke it up into little bits, and only the wide parts. and what ever he did the ghosts are back. Best Regards, Andy ___ 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] Edit Attacks
when i look at the changeset it went to the guy, but did not tell me what he did. i have had that discussion before with somebody else that must be listed and we agreed it was a land fill, with a golf course on top it is a very small part of the top of the hill only 9 holes only, how many times do i have to go back and defend my edits ? how many times do i have to go back and redo my edits. it is a very big hill that is collecting gas and making electricity. and there still digging on it, and a snow hill and park on the back side. if the edit is wrong then add and correct not do what was done i have had 2 people ask me to explane my one edit and have me look what i did and correct not jump in and demand. >Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:53 PM -05:00 from Andy Townsend < ajt1...@gmail.com >>: > >On 10/06/2020 22:41, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote: >> this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with >> somebody that was >> calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat >> surface and then explaned >> how to list it as non active. >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160 > > >Well that's been a golf course for only a month: > >http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=802256628 > >If that isn't a golf course, I suggest you discuss that with the person >who added that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84983669 . > > >> but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that >> maye should not be as to the Wiki. >> and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who >> thought he own the map. >> >As I suggested earlier, it'd definitely make sense to split up some of >the huge "natural=water; water=river" areas such as >https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949 , but anyone who does that >will need to do it in such as way that it doesn't accidentally delete >large lengths of riverbank (which happened last time). i do not think i did, is says do not do the entire river, i broke it up into little bits, and only the wide parts. and what ever he did the ghosts are back. > >Best Regards, > >Andy > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Edit Attacks
this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with somebody that was calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat surface and then explaned how to list it as non active. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160 but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that maye should not be as to the Wiki. and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who thought he own the map. >Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:26 PM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk >: > >Can you link any specific changeset damaging data >or object that was deleted and should not be? > >Linked ones >http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=86230442 >http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=85357849 >appear to not be problematic > >( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949#map=9/41.8982/-87.7286 >is on boundary of unreasonably large relation, but it is not >something very problematic) > >Jun 10, 2020, 15:27 by talk...@openstreetmap.org: >> Last week I edited a 10 year old, 81 mile MultiPolygon with GHOSTS in >>the ID editor, all I know, Someone >> >>took offence to that, >>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85357849#map=13/42.0813/-87.8854 >> >>and attacked all my edits of that day, and as he moved from north to south, >>every thing I did for the >> >>last year. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86230442 , with things >>other people had already >> >>called me on, (discussion). so exposing my self everything I have done in >>the last 24 hours is under question >> >>from people who are not local but in Europe. even my visit to the golf course >>is in question a 7 year stale edit. >> >> >> > >___ >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] Deprecated feature template in the wiki
Jun 10, 2020, 17:25 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 10. Jun 2020, at 14:58, Mateusz Konieczny via talk >> wrote: >> >> "Why is the definition for the tag removed" it never had a good definition. >> > > > the former definition was > >> A large water tank, typically cylindrical >> That is why I used "never had a good definition", not "never had a definition" It has (a) "large" appearing from nowhere (b) repeat of what is already in tag value (c) mention of shape that is not helpful in any way. Feel free to restore it if you think that it was helpful, though meaning of that tag is quite clear anyway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Edit Attacks
Can you link any specific changeset damaging data or object that was deleted and should not be? Linked ones http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=86230442 http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=85357849 appear to not be problematic ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949#map=9/41.8982/-87.7286 is on boundary of unreasonably large relation, but it is not something very problematic) Jun 10, 2020, 15:27 by talk...@openstreetmap.org: > Last week I edited a 10 year old, 81 mile> MultiPolygon with GHOSTS in > the ID editor, all I know, Someone > > took offence to that, > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85357849#map=13/42.0813/-87.8854 > > and attacked all my edits of that day, and as he moved from north to south, > every thing I did for the > > last year. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86230442> , with > things other people had already > > called me on, (discussion). so > > exposing> my self everything I have done > in the last 24 hours is under question > > from people who are not local but in Europe. even my visit to the golf course > is in question a 7 year stale edit. > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
On 09/06/2020 18:40, Simon Poole wrote: [snip] Based on information in this thread and private conversation with some of OSMF members, it looks like Mapbox has treated the iD project as owned by OSMF from the beginning. Furthermore, I've been told iD maintainers are happy with the proposed arrangements, so everything is clear. The blog post is then not about changes to the governance but our internal rules for maintaining the project. Having said that, (speaking as a user) please refrain from making radical changes. The iD project is being run well and there wouldn't want to change _that_. Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit Attacks
Last week I edited a 10 year old, 81 mile MultiPolygon with GHOSTS in the ID editor, all I know, Someone took offence to that, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85357849#map=13/42.0813/-87.8854 and attacked all my edits of that day, and as he moved from north to south, every thing I did for the last year. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86230442 , with things other people had already called me on, (discussion). so exposing my self everything I have done in the last 24 hours is under question from people who are not local but in Europe. even my visit to the golf course is in question a 7 year stale edit. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Deprecated feature template in the wiki
Note that this page never lost really useful documentation.
There was
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tank&oldid=1245262
with claims either dubious or completely obvious.
I restored "similar tags" section.
"Why is the definition for the tag removed" it never had a good definition.
"Why should someone not " (semi-)automatically change “deprecated” tags to
something else in the database""
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
"I also believe replacing the tag image with this one"
>From looking through history this page never had an image anyway.
Jun 10, 2020, 14:07 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> I have seen that some features have been "deprecated" in the wiki by
> replacing all documentation with a template like this:
> example > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tank
>
>>
>> {{Deprecated
>> |oldkey=man_made
>> |oldvalue=water_tank
>> |newtext=tag:man_made=storage_tank + tag:content=water
>> }}
>>
>
> which leads to this text:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> This feature has been labeled as >> deprecated>> . The recommended
>> replacement is: tag:man_made=storage_tank + tag:content=water .
>> The reason is documented in >> Deprecated features
>> >> . You are still
>> free to continue to use or interpret this tag as you see fit since
>> OpenStreetMap does not have “banned features”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Under no circumstances should you (semi-)automatically change “deprecated”
>> tags to something else in the database on a large scale without conforming
>> to the >> Automated Edits code of conduct
>> >> .
>> Any such change will be reverted.
>>
>
> in the sidebar, the definition is replaced by "Using this tag is discouraged,
> use man_made=storage_tank + content=water instead. "
>
>
> This doesn't make sense. Why is the definition for the tag removed? Why
> should someone not " (semi-)automatically change “deprecated” tags to
> something else in the database" if these tags are completely synonymous as
> the template suggests?
>
> I am fine with adding deprecation templates which should add some kind of
> marker about the deprecation, but the original page content should not be
> removed. The deprecation marker should be an addition.
>
> I also believe replacing the tag image with this one >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Commons-emblem-hand.svg/200px-Commons-emblem-hand.svg.png
> is carrying this to excess.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Deprecated feature template in the wiki
On 10/06/2020 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: This doesn't make sense. Why is the definition for the tag removed? Why should someone not " (semi-)automatically change “deprecated” tags to something else in the database" if these tags are completely synonymous as the template suggests? It doesn't say you shouldn't change them - it says that such a change is an automated edit that should follow the automated edit rules. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Deprecated feature template in the wiki
I have seen that some features have been "deprecated" in the wiki by
replacing all documentation with a template like this:
example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tank
>
> {{Deprecated
> |oldkey=man_made
> |oldvalue=water_tank
> |newtext=tag:man_made=storage_tank + tag:content=water
> }}
>
which leads to this text:
> This feature has been labeled as *deprecated*. The recommended
> replacement is: tag:man_made=storage_tank + tag:content=water .
> The reason is documented in Deprecated features
> . You are still
> free to continue to use or interpret this tag as you see fit since
> OpenStreetMap does not have “banned features”.
> *Under no circumstances should you (semi-)automatically change
> “deprecated” tags to something else in the database on a large scale
> without conforming to the Automated Edits code of conduct
> . Any
> such change will be reverted.*
in the sidebar, the definition is replaced by "Using this tag is
discouraged, use man_made=storage_tank + content=water instead. "
This doesn't make sense. Why is the definition for the tag removed? Why
should someone not " (semi-)automatically change “deprecated” tags to
something else in the database" if these tags are completely synonymous as
the template suggests?
I am fine with adding deprecation templates which should add some kind of
marker about the deprecation, but the original page content should not be
removed. The deprecation marker should be an addition.
I also believe replacing the tag image with this one
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Commons-emblem-hand.svg/200px-Commons-emblem-hand.svg.png
is carrying this to excess.
Cheers
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
