Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming
Hi, In regards to the traffic calming edit there has only been one comment related to the merits of the actual change - that was me and I approved the edit (Chris I don't think you commented on the edit itself, instead focusing on the matter of mechanical edits?). Does this mean we can now look for someone to un-revert this changeset? Rob On 22 Nov 2015 20:29, "Rob Nickerson" wrote: > On 22 November 2015 at 19:33, Chris Hill wrote: > >> >> Gerd did the work you describe but went ahead with an almost nation-wide >> mechanical edit without any prior discussion or description. That's why I >> asked him to revert it. Mechanical edits need to be discussed. He then >> indicated that he would discuss the tags on tagging@ - indeed he >> suggested leaving his edit and discussing it on tagging@. I wanted also >> to make it clear that tagging@ is not the best place to discuss >> mechanical edits - a lot of people avoid tagging@ to maintain the will >> to live. >> >> > I agree that mechanical edits *should* get discussed - I expect many don't > due to the negativity of mailing lists and no clear indication of when > something is accepted (the tagging mailing list went off topic instantly). > However when faced with a non-discussed mechanical edit I feel that a > pragmatic approach should be taken. In this instance I feel your response > was heavy handed. "OK, a mech edit that has not been discussed and agreed > will be reverted. That's the rules." is not particularly helpful or > supportive. > > I also disagree with the instant revert in this case - perhaps a quick > chat on IRC would have helped to see if others wanted an instant revert. It > now looks like we have put Gerd off editing in the UK :-( > > And now I definitely have wasted enough time on this matter! > > Happy mapping, > Rob > > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming
On 22/11/2015 20:55, Chris Hill wrote: On a mailing list or IRC channel that relates to the area the mechanical edit is proposed to be. So in a GB-wide edit, talk-GB and #osm-gb makes sense to me. But the amendments to the *tags* aren't GB specific. It needs to be discussed with as wide an array of users as possible. Which, as I've said many times before, is why IRC should never be used to discuss matters that affect OSM. It's discussed with just a few BFFs who happen to live in the same time zones & are too scared to keep a record of their comments. I convinced those who use IRC have got ulterior motives which they want to keep hidden. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming
On 22/11/15 20:17, Steve Doerr wrote: On 22/11/2015 19:37, Chris Hill wrote: Mechanical edits need to be discussed. He then indicated that he would discuss the tags on tagging@ - indeed he suggested leaving his edit and discussing it on tagging@. I wanted also to make it clear that tagging@ is not the best place to discuss mechanical edits So where is? On a mailing list or IRC channel that relates to the area the mechanical edit is proposed to be. So in a GB-wide edit, talk-GB and #osm-gb makes sense to me. -- Cheers, Chris (chillly) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming
On 22 November 2015 at 19:33, Chris Hill wrote: > > Gerd did the work you describe but went ahead with an almost nation-wide > mechanical edit without any prior discussion or description. That's why I > asked him to revert it. Mechanical edits need to be discussed. He then > indicated that he would discuss the tags on tagging@ - indeed he > suggested leaving his edit and discussing it on tagging@. I wanted also > to make it clear that tagging@ is not the best place to discuss > mechanical edits - a lot of people avoid tagging@ to maintain the will to > live. > > I agree that mechanical edits *should* get discussed - I expect many don't due to the negativity of mailing lists and no clear indication of when something is accepted (the tagging mailing list went off topic instantly). However when faced with a non-discussed mechanical edit I feel that a pragmatic approach should be taken. In this instance I feel your response was heavy handed. "OK, a mech edit that has not been discussed and agreed will be reverted. That's the rules." is not particularly helpful or supportive. I also disagree with the instant revert in this case - perhaps a quick chat on IRC would have helped to see if others wanted an instant revert. It now looks like we have put Gerd off editing in the UK :-( And now I definitely have wasted enough time on this matter! Happy mapping, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming
On 22/11/2015 19:37, Chris Hill wrote: Mechanical edits need to be discussed. He then indicated that he would discuss the tags on tagging@ - indeed he suggested leaving his edit and discussing it on tagging@. I wanted also to make it clear that tagging@ is not the best place to discuss mechanical edits So where is? -- Steve --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming
On 22/11/15 19:06, Rob Nickerson wrote: >There has been a discussion on the tagging mailing list triggered by >Gerd Petermann having made a mechanical edit to some traffic calming >features. Thanks Chris, To summarise for those who don't want to get stuck in the tagging mailing list, Gerd spotted that traffic calming (speed bumps, etc) was tagged in different ways: 1. highway=traffic_calming 2. highway=traffic_calming + traffic_calming=* 3. traffic_calming=* It looks like highway=traffic_calming (which was only used ~1000 times vs traffic_calming=*'s ~200,000 times) has never been a suggested tag on the wiki. As such Gerd made the following changes to the three cases above: 1. Replaced with traffic_calming=yes 2. Keep just traffic_calming=* 3. No change The edit included a review of all nodes and extra detail was added on a case by case basis if required (e.g. crossing details is it is also a pedestrian crossing). Quite frankly I don't really care. The tag was hardly used so if Gerd wants to get rid of it completely and has time to do this then fine by me. On the flip side the tag is not incorrect (just not documented or supported by many people) so why waste time to remove it. Given that Gerd took the time to manually review each one before changing it and made improvements in some cases, I would have been quite happy to let this slide - we have bigger issues to be discussing. Question: Is the discussion of this more wasteful (time) and harmful (negative impression of the community) than the original edit? Gerd did the work you describe but went ahead with an almost nation-wide mechanical edit without any prior discussion or description. That's why I asked him to revert it. Mechanical edits need to be discussed. He then indicated that he would discuss the tags on tagging@ - indeed he suggested leaving his edit and discussing it on tagging@. I wanted also to make it clear that tagging@ is not the best place to discuss mechanical edits - a lot of people avoid tagging@ to maintain the will to live. -- Cheers, Chris (chillly) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming
>There has been a discussion on the tagging mailing list triggered by >Gerd Petermann having made a mechanical edit to some traffic calming >features. Thanks Chris, To summarise for those who don't want to get stuck in the tagging mailing list, Gerd spotted that traffic calming (speed bumps, etc) was tagged in different ways: 1. highway=traffic_calming 2. highway=traffic_calming + traffic_calming=* 3. traffic_calming=* It looks like highway=traffic_calming (which was only used ~1000 times vs traffic_calming=*'s ~200,000 times) has never been a suggested tag on the wiki. As such Gerd made the following changes to the three cases above: 1. Replaced with traffic_calming=yes 2. Keep just traffic_calming=* 3. No change The edit included a review of all nodes and extra detail was added on a case by case basis if required (e.g. crossing details is it is also a pedestrian crossing). Quite frankly I don't really care. The tag was hardly used so if Gerd wants to get rid of it completely and has time to do this then fine by me. On the flip side the tag is not incorrect (just not documented or supported by many people) so why waste time to remove it. Given that Gerd took the time to manually review each one before changing it and made improvements in some cases, I would have been quite happy to let this slide - we have bigger issues to be discussing. Question: Is the discussion of this more wasteful (time) and harmful (negative impression of the community) than the original edit? *Rob* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] traffic calming
There has been a discussion on the tagging mailing list triggered by Gerd Petermann having made a mechanical edit to some traffic calming features. I asked him to revert the undiscussed mechanical edit which he has done. He is not subscribed to talk-gb, he asked me to forward a link to his email to talk-gb, so here it is: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-November/027597.html Whatever the outcome of the discussion on tagging@, even in the highly unlikely event that tagging@ comes to some consensus, I do not agree that Gerd's mechanical edit is much use. I specifically wanted to point out that discussing stuff on tagging@ doesn't constitute agreement to run a mechanical edit IMO. -- Cheers, Chris (chillly) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
