Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 15/03/2019 11:41, Sergio Manzi wrote: ... I see this as the last straw ... (just to add to what Frederik has said) Can I recommend that all mailing lists work much better with an effective killfile at the client side?  That way you don't need to read anything by people who you don't

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Sergio, and others who might be reading this and thinking it is "normal", On 15.03.19 12:41, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Another tasteless and vile joke. It is ok to say that, even though I'd hope it is rarely necessary. But it is definitely not ok to say > Not that I was expecting anything better

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm > are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf Another tasteless and vile joke. Not that I was expecting anything better from you, Martin:

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm > are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf > +1 ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am 14. März 2019 01:02:56 MEZ schrieb Sergio Manzi : >On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi > wrote: >> >> >> I was advicing somebody something completely different as of >lately: to form a hidden, underground,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Mar 14, 2019, 12:03 AM by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > > “> form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft > > proposals” > > 臘‍♂️ > > I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry > were excluded from this cabal of illuminati.  > Proposing

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > > I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to > form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals > that are

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 00:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals” > > 臘‍♂️ > > I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry > were excluded from this cabal of illuminati.  > > [guilty as charged ☺️] All

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to > form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals > that are already agreed upon by at least "some" before going public with > the proposal... >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

> “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals” 臘‍♂️ I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry were excluded from this cabal of illuminati.  [guilty as charged ☺️] Seriously though, it’s much more helpful if authors of proposals

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-13 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > It would just be good if there was only  place that these discussions on new > proposals took place. I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > It will rather reduce discussion. People from OSM wiki are more likely to > stop commenting rather > than start using mailing list. And why commenting on talk page would be > worse than commenting on ml? > Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am 13. März 2019 00:33:02 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - >maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion >has >to happen on the tagging list? Or promote proposals better, may by consistently (or

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 00:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Of those 76 active on the list in Nov, 16 people commented on your proposal. > When it came to the vote, 33 people voted, but only 2 of them had made > comments on the list, but, strangely enough, only 2 people who

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Mar 13, 2019, 12:33 AM by graemefi...@gmail.com: > I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - maybe > remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion has to > happen on the tagging list? > It will rather reduce discussion. People from OSM wiki are

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

I second Joseph's comment -- the proposal has to be very short for people to review it - e.g. less than a page, with a clear usage examples -- take a few well known ones like Crimea and Kashmir, and just list all features (ways/relations) and their tags. (actually most people don't read beyond

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

I thought the proposal was too complicated. This made it difficult to review, so I was reluctant to vite. I believe a simpler, more approachabke proposal would have a higher chance of success. I’d recommend reading all of the objections and trying again with a much simpler version. On Wed, Mar

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:22, Johnparis wrote: > What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had > thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering > with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are > interested in this topic, it

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am Di., 12. März 2019 um 19:22 Uhr schrieb Johnparis : > Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 > abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, > which has no effect on the outcome.) > > The proposal was therefore defeated, not having

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

John, thanks for all the work on this. What surprises me is that some people are so oppose to the principal value of OSM itself -- to allow mappers to map. Disputed territories still need to be mapped - because they reflect reality of the dispute, and because many data consumers need it.

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, which has no effect on the outcome.) The proposal was therefore defeated, not having achieved anywhere near 74% approval. I suspect that it is not