I don't think any level of whataboutism
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) will change that the
default editor on osm.org has a special (and very coveted) position.
So while I agree that in principle we should expect the same level of
care from all apps that edit OSM data via the API,
On 29/05/2019 01:10, Clifford Snow wrote:
Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't
they all be held to the same standard?
As someone who still fights to keep potlatch2 working locally then yes
all options should be judged to the same standard, and there are
To avoid hurting any sensibilities, I'd say this is maybe not the best way to
go in its form.
Why not organizing a kind of audit with a review process that would be
coordinated?
Otherwise I fear this page could just end up being a list for everybody pet
rant.
Yves
Le 29 mai 2019 00:46:42
That's a good point, let's make a list about MAPS.ME.
In the countries where there's a community to fix the mess it's not that
bad, but elsewhere like the Middle East...
- Limited set of available POI types to add and no choice for "not on the
list". Like people adding amenity=motorcycle_parking
sent from a phone
> On 29. May 2019, at 07:45, Maarten Deen wrote:
>
> IMHO the strategy for adding roads also should be on this list. The
> optionlist to add accessrights for "all, foot, motorvehicles, bicycle, horse"
> resulting in a foot=yes, motorvehicle=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes on
IMHO the strategy for adding roads also should be on this list. The
optionlist to add accessrights for "all, foot, motorvehicles, bicycle,
horse" resulting in a foot=yes, motorvehicle=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes
on all roads is creating redundant tagging.
Maarten
On 2019-05-29 06:29, Andrew
29 May 2019, 02:45 by jwhelan0...@gmail.com:
> I understand in NYC a relative newcomer using the new validation feature of
> iD has made a very large number of changes to NYC and that I think is the
> sort of thing we wish to avoid.
>
Note that it becomes problem only when
combined with
I'm not sure if this should be added, but at the time how iD decided to add
presets for lifeguards facilities was controversial.
We used to have documented on the wiki and in use:
emergency=lifeguard_place
emergency=lifeguard_base
emergency=lifeguard_tower
emergency=lifeguard_platform
Which each
The problem is www.openstreetmap.org has a link to edit OSM. When it
was first put in it probably was a very reasonable thing to do but we do
not have a change management system in place and over time iD has changed.
The real problem is new mappers will naturally edit OSM through the link
Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? Shouldn't
they all be held to the same standard?
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan wrote:
> The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web
> page of the website which implies that everything is
The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on the web
page of the website which implies that everything is OpenStreetMap approved
which unfortunately is not the case.
If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be held to a
higher standard or some sort of
Michael,
Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside projects,
such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them are controlled by OSMF
as far as I know. To just look at one software project seems like we
already reached a decision, we just need the data to back it up.
Best,
Hi,
I started documenting controversial decisions by the maintainers of iD
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes issue are
mentioned.
Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed controversial so
13 matches
Mail list logo
