Erik Johansson wrote:
Real mappers don't document; their tags are enough. Wannabe mappers
read documentation and follow templates. So how should you become a
mapper if there is no documentation. There is a lack of people who are
willing to write something on the wiki, not too many.
there
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Johansson wrote:
Real mappers don't document; their tags are enough. Wannabe mappers
read documentation and follow templates. So how should you become a
mapper if there is no documentation. There is a lack of
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:57:07AM +, Andy Allan wrote:
[...], which
triggered a virulent campaign by the wiki-types to repeatedly delete
the information that I had put up, [...]
Who exactly are the wiki-types you mention?
IMO there shouldn't be the wiki-types and the mappers, those should
Andy Allan wrote:
I've been hit by it a few times, and one specific case that annoys me
greatly. I invented a tag by using it (OMG!!), and then even rendering
it. Other people started using it. Then the wiki-types made up their
own alternative tag without making any reference to the existing
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Erik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Matt Amos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there have been occasions when real mappers have documented their
tags on the wiki, only to have the wiki pages overwritten by someone
else's better
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Sascha Silbe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:57:07AM +, Andy Allan wrote:
[...], which
triggered a virulent campaign by the wiki-types to repeatedly delete
the information that I had put up, [...]
Who exactly are the wiki-types you
Erik Johansson wrote:
This is a really naive and contraproductive argument, nothing is black
and white. You have to define what it is you are mapping, and you
don't do that in the database.
Yeah, but therein lies the problem.
The people doing the defining are, in many cases, not the ones
Richard Fairhurst schrieb:
Erik Johansson wrote:
This is a really naive and contraproductive argument, nothing is black
and white. You have to define what it is you are mapping, and you
don't do that in the database.
Yeah, but therein lies the problem.
The people doing the defining
On 4 Nov 2008, at 20:56, Ulf Lamping wrote:
It's simply a misconception that the voting process necessarily
needs that all people involved to be experts of the topic. If the
proposal is well prepared and discussed even by a very small number of
people knowing what they are talking about, you
COn Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Johansson wrote:
This is a really naive and contraproductive argument, nothing is black
and white. You have to define what it is you are mapping, and you
don't do that in the database.
Yeah, but therein lies
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Erik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
COn Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The people doing the defining are, in many cases, not the ones who
are doing the mapping. There are plenty of people voting on things
just
Chris Jones schrieb:
On 4 Nov 2008, at 20:56, Ulf Lamping wrote:
It's simply a misconception that the voting process necessarily
needs that all people involved to be experts of the topic. If the
proposal is well prepared and discussed even by a very small number of
people knowing what they
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Ulf Lamping [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any proposed features that see significant real world usage make there
way onto the map_features page.
Well, I've recently added some often used tags indicated by tagwatch to
the Map Features page. It wasn't easy for me to
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Matt Amos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Erik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
COn Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The people doing the defining are, in many cases, not the ones who
are doing
Hi,
Erik Johansson wrote:
Yes that is very cumbersome but how often does this happen, and does
it really warrant that flippant attitude? Having a better way to
handle multiple meanings of tags might help.
The core of this flippant attitude is easily explained.
When OSM was started - that was
Third possibility...
I think that crrowd sourcing itself is actually different (in general
and not just OSM being different).
In the case of OSM we clearly see emergent 'standards' and 'models,
These are codefied in the wiki and, more importantly, in the tools
that realize the data into
16 matches
Mail list logo
