>
> Underneath the specific issues with iD development that are being
> discussed right now lies a broader problem of ideas of cultural
> exceptionalism
>
...
I believe the problem is much simpler. iD is not developed by employees of
OpenStreetMap Foundation so there is no formal way to ask anythi
On Wednesday 29 May 2019, Christine Karch wrote:
>
> reading the discussions about the direction of ID development and how
> the community wants the ID at the OSM website I had the idea that
> there could perhaps be a panel at SotM. Does anyone want to organize
> an ID discussion panel at SotM? Ple
We really have victims here, it seems.
Dear Christine, thank you for your work, thanks for your help, thanks
for your ideas, thanks for your presence at many OSM events.
Il semble que des personnes n'arrivent pas à gérer des idées différentes
des leurs. Leurs idées seront toujours les bonnes et
I take it by this email you are putting your views and that of your team of
what should be done above everyone else and no one else's views should
count which would be fine for any other editor.
Unfortunately I honestly think there is a change management problem with
the default editor on the fron
Dear Christine, Bryan and colleagues,
Thank you for this conversation. Christine, thanks for the consideration.
Many people use ID. It is part of OSM.
Bryan, i will reach out to separately on this topic. My goal is really to
understand using this example on how we might improve for all people. Th
Christine..
We mustn't define “the community” as the few remaining handful of people who
have not yet been driven off the mailing lists by persistent abusers and trolls.
I am very aware of what people are saying about iD on all discussion channels.
I read all of it, even the stuff written in
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, th
Hi,
reading the discussions about the direction of ID development and how
the community wants the ID at the OSM website I had the idea that there
could perhaps be a panel at SotM. Does anyone want to organize an ID
discussion panel at SotM? Please tell me or us (program committee in CC)
and we can
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
def
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 GM
I assume that that way (powerline) was downloaded because it also has
nodes in the area you downloaded. JOSM will never complain about
objects that are not downloaded. Powerline ways tend to be long, so
the warning can easily be in another state, that is true.
Furthermore, I thought that it is not
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 al
13 matches
Mail list logo
