Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
On 16/07/2016 07:20, Greg Morgan wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro S. wrote: Hi, Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey what they are doing... I think it should be reverted. Kind regards, Alejandro Suárez 4.) Edit 7, the edit under dispute, Wynndale removes the highway=crossing tag following the first sentence of the wiki page and the rest of the paragraph. I think you're putting to much importance on the wiki & not enough about what's on the ground. Wynndale to an incorrect tag & made it worse (to correct it the removed tag would have to be re-added & then crossing=no removed. The geographic spread strongly implies he didn't have local knowledge for them all. So how about coaching the mapper verses reverting the changeset or making an allegation. He's made over 1400 edits since 2009. Even the original tagging is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why would you want to revert a change that is right based on the wiki to something that is wrong to begin with? Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to revert this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the amendments can clarify what is the correct tagging to use. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F wrote: > > On 16/07/2016 07:20, Greg Morgan wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro S. >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey >>> what >>> they are doing... >>> >>> I think it should be reverted. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>>Alejandro Suárez >> >> >> 4.) Edit 7, the edit under dispute, Wynndale removes the >> highway=crossing tag following the first sentence of the wiki page and >> the rest of the paragraph. >> > > I think you're putting to much importance on the wiki & not enough about > what's on the ground. > Wynndale to an incorrect tag & made it worse (to correct it the removed tag > would have to be re-added & then crossing=no removed. > > The geographic spread strongly implies he didn't have local knowledge for > them all. > >> So how about coaching the mapper verses reverting the changeset or >> making an allegation. > > > He's made over 1400 edits since 2009. > >> Even the original tagging is wrong. > > > Two wrongs don't make a right. And yet you persist at your war. > >> Why would >> you want to revert a change that is right based on the wiki to >> something that is wrong to begin with? > > > Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to revert > this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the amendments can > clarify what is the correct tagging to use. NO! I am putting the emphasis on the bullying that is going on in the community under the guise of correctness. You took it upon yourself to allege an automated edit in the talk on the change set. Now you brought your war here. You want to roll back someone's work just because you think you are right yet you cannot say that you have surveyed the ground either. That's my objection! We are an open source project that should be building on each other's work. I agree that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change. I disagree with how you are handling the situation. The better way forward is not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing; crossing=unmarked; FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other tags or changing the crossing tag. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F wrote: ...Two wrongs don't make a right. And yet you persist at your war. Seriously? Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to revert this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the amendments can clarify what is the correct tagging to use. NO! I am putting the emphasis on the bullying that is going on in the community under the guise of correctness. I'm struggling to see how asking for other's opinions could be regarded as bullying. I'm endeavouring to make the OSM database as accurate as possible. When I see edits that make it worse I will query it. That's not bullying, You took it upon yourself to allege an automated edit in the talk on the change set. No I never. Please pay attention Now you brought your war here. Where better to have a discussion than a 'Talk' forum? You want to roll back someone's work just because you think you are right No. It's because Wynnham has made assumptions. yet you cannot say that you have surveyed the ground either. That's my objection! We are an open source project that should be building on each other's work. I agree that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change. I disagree with how you are handling the situation. The better way forward is not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing; crossing=unmarked; How do you know they're unmarked? Reverting will reinsert the highway=crossing to all tags in one go. FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other tags or changing the crossing tag. That's the same as asking on Talk-gb for users to check which, I suspect, will have a higher hit rate. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
On 19/07/16 15:26, Dave F wrote: On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F wrote: Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to revert this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the amendments can clarify what is the correct tagging to use. NO! I am putting the emphasis on the bullying that is going on in the community under the guise of correctness. I'm struggling to see how asking for other's opinions could be regarded as bullying. I'm endeavouring to make the OSM database as accurate as possible. When I see edits that make it worse I will query it. That's not bullying, I suppose that reverting a changeset could be seen as "insulting" or demotivating. To me, a better approach would simply be to let it go (why waste some time on thirty nodes ?), or if you want correct-it yourself. IMHO, going on a war that could result in the original author loosing his motivation is far worse than maybe putting wrong information on 24 nodes. I mean: there are far worse errors in OSM that this. Best, B.B. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Dave F wrote: > > On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> ...Two wrongs don't make a right. >> >> And yet you persist at your war. > > >>We are an open >> source project that should be building on each other's work. I agree >> that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change. I disagree >> with how you are handling the situation. The better way forward is >> not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing; >> crossing=unmarked; > > > How do you know they're unmarked? > The long story short is that there is a node that is tagged that can be built upon. Even with the current tagging that Wynnham added or removed, there is a node to build upon. Add just the FIXME tag to the current tagging. I don't care. The big sledge hammer approach to your fellow mapper is what I care about. > Reverting will reinsert the highway=crossing to all tags in one go. > >> FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other >> tags or changing the crossing tag. > > > That's the same as asking on Talk-gb for users to check which, I suspect, > will have a higher hit rate. Right to the end you have this precision that no one else can match. Look at all the energy that you spent on correctness and continue to do so. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
On 19/07/2016 14:36, Benoît Barteaux wrote: I suppose that reverting a changeset could be seen as "insulting" or demotivating. To me, a better approach would simply be to let it go (why waste some time on thirty nodes ?), or if you want correct-it yourself. IMHO, going on a war that could result in the original author loosing his motivation is far worse than maybe putting wrong information on 24 nodes. I mean: there are far worse errors in OSM that this. You're probably correct if you take this one changeset in isolation, but if it shows to it's creator & to other users that mass edits like this may not be the best way then it could prevent many further poor edits in the future. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
It strikes me that it's you whose "at war" On 19/07/2016 14:48, Greg Morgan wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Dave F wrote: On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F wrote: ...Two wrongs don't make a right. And yet you persist at your war. We are an open source project that should be building on each other's work. I agree that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change. I disagree with how you are handling the situation. The better way forward is not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing; crossing=unmarked; How do you know they're unmarked? The long story short is that there is a node that is tagged that can be built upon. Even with the current tagging that Wynnham added or removed, there is a node to build upon. Add just the FIXME tag to the current tagging. I don't care. The big sledge hammer approach to your fellow mapper is what I care about. Reverting will reinsert the highway=crossing to all tags in one go. FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other tags or changing the crossing tag. That's the same as asking on Talk-gb for users to check which, I suspect, will have a higher hit rate. Right to the end you have this precision that no one else can match. Look at all the energy that you spent on correctness and continue to do so. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Released MapContrib 0.10.0
Hi everyone, Today is the release date of MapContrib 0.10.0 ! :) MapContrib is a web thematic editor to OpenStreetMap. It is simple, universal (works on all devices) and mobile (go test it in the street!) MapContrib has been introduced at the SOTM FR 2016 [1] and will be present at the Bruxel's SOTM in september [2]. >From a user perspective, this release brings among others: * When adding a new POI, the POI location method uses a fixed cross displayed on top of the map. * It is now possible to move a POI (only node ones). * New type of layers, based on GPX, CSV and GeoJSON files are added. * There is a new layer information column. It displays OverPass requests, original data files and a button to download GeoJSON data. * It is now possible to automatically center the theme on the user geolocation. * The home page search results revert to highlighted themes when the search input is empty. * The info button on contribution and preset fields is now active and send the user to the taginfo service. * The geocoder search results provide more informations and are prettier. * Lets the possibility to display POI's infos in popups, modals or columns. * And as always, multiple bufixes and enhancement ;) You can now test / use / share the tool with http://www.mapcontrib.xyz [3]. Thanks, Guillaume Links: -- [1] http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4dtprb_sotm-fr2016-vincent-bergeot-guillaume-amat-mapcontrib-faciliter-la-contribution-autour-d-une-themati_school [2] http://2016.stateofthemap.org/2016/mapcontrib-openstreetmap-contribution-simple-everywhere/ [3] http://www.mapcontrib.xyz/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
