I will explain the things from my point of view. There was a discussion about direction in traffic signs because a problem in major online editor iD.
32 messages that starts Fri, Sep 28, 4:52 AM (12 days ago) and finnish Oct 3, 2018, 12:04 AM (7 days ago) . Five days of discussion. -In the first message Bryan Housel comments a problem "While reviewing a pull request to add Traffic Sign presets to iD, I came across a tagging issue with how traffic sign directions are tagged. The details are here https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/5333"; -On 4th message Simon Poole comments "I actually mentioned the issue in Milano. " -On 9th message Simon Poole says "There are a total of 37'000 forward / backward variants that would have to be migrated to traffic_sign + a suitable sub tag, not an awful lot in the grand scheme of things, but needs to be done." So the need for a big change in existing traffic signs was written in tagging list, and nobody's says "No, it is not a good idea". Well, I did not agree with that. I have talk for first time in message number 21. Instead I manage 40 presets ,3 styles and more than 10 configuration files for Kendzi3D plugin in JOSM, and 3 projects in taginfo with more than 24000 pairs (key=value) I don't talk. Until I want to justify the nowadays proposal because if you read it is assumed the change will be done in iD - major online editor of OSM. Also I was thinking: I don't like changes but what can I do? Fight against iD solution(the major editor) (Remember the Mapsme subway solution, isn't it) ? In 28th message I have said Ok, make you the changes -ironically- (there was a way to say Hey! There are a lot of changes to do, are you sure? Changing 30000+ nodes, are you nuts?) Weekend arrives . I have a little free time so...Really Do I have to fight against iD proposal? (I see the pull request merged in their github). Or say the opposite to Simon Poole? Ok, I will give up. Discussion is ended (there were no more messages). iD pull request was applied so it is imminent the edition of traffic signs...with two different schemes. It is better to help, so I have edited all the presets (I'm not a programmer so for me it is a difficult thing, a pain in the ass if you want to tell it) , the styles, taginfo (goodbye to the forward backward subkey , but hey! traffic signs now will be edited via iD so a lot of people would edit them . And after the tool work...why I can't help more? There is more than 24000 nodes (reading taginfo). Ok, but for not having problems the changeset message will be very clear: "#fastag #traffic_signs Apply traffic_sign:direction tag to avoid problems with new iD editor as an agreement on tagging list". The way to do is simple: I would have only made a simple translation: traffic_sign:forward=* to traffic_sign=* and traffic_sign:direction=forward, and the same for backward.Traffic signals have also this solution so It can not be so bad after all. And now traffic signs will be edited by iD. It is a win-win thing. I have made the first changes in nodes and then check presets, styles -the day after I have checked taginfo- and it works. Also I have checked my email and OSM profile and there was not any message. So I think I was in the good way - I was helping to do this big change at all. And going zone by zone making specific overpass queries to make the things the best as I could with a little computer and low programming knowledge. When I put the new tags style were working and it shows every traffic sign different in every country. It was a hard task : 55 changesets with about 16000+ traffic signs modified to the new scheme. Heavy work done. Then "shit happens" . Mknight says "Wäre es nicht irgendwie sinnvoller, ein issue für iD zu schreiben, statt etabliertes Tagging zu ändern?" Well, I'm not German so I have used Google Translator to guess the idea was not of his agreement. Well, in tagging there is not more messages at all and people are agree with the change proposed by iD people. In a big thing like OSM not every one can be agree with it and Mknight does not participate on the discussion. I hope some people of their community explain to him the possibility to edit with iD thanks to this change. But then Mueschel says something similar...D'Oh! "The discussion ended with your question about the change, not a single answer approving it. Mass edits should be announced and agreed on in a broader community, and not in the depth of a thread without anybody noticing." What? The discussion was ended without nobody against it, Simon Poole saying there is big change to do, people congrats and making petitions to iD people...and I assuming before or later I would have to change all the JOSM stuff. Ok. In +16000 and 55 changesets there were some errors surely, but what percentatge? How many nodes do I have modified by error...because...ways does not have a traffic_sign key, isn't it ? Well. I want to publish the messages people says to me on the changesets: Mknight "Wäre es nicht irgendwie sinnvoller, ein issue für iD zu schreiben, statt etabliertes Tagging zu ändern?" Mueschel "Please stop this undiscussed mechanical edit until further discussion.It breaks many cases of traffic sign tagging." Mueschel "The discussion ended with your question about the change, not a single answer approving it. Mass edits should be announced and agreed on in a broader community, and not in the depth of a thread without anybody noticing. You also edited ways with traffic_sign:* tags, where this scheme will not work at all." Peilscheibe "I reverted this changeset because diligent tagging (e.g. about different traffic signs per direction) was removed and replaced by wrong information. This is not acceptable at all." Peilscheibe "Just a few examples: http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/25717685 http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/629964077 http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/629964082 On this ways (and a lot of others) there was a different traffic sign tagging per direction. Why? Because in reality the ways are differently signposted per direction which has de facto and de jure implications on traffic members. Your edit removed this diligent tagging and wrong values were contributed. This is a blatant information loss and it is wrong." geri-oc "Du hast hier Änderungen vor genommen die nicht zutreffend sin. Die Richtung in Sinne des Weges ist backwart oder forwart. direction gibt eine Richtung in Grad oder Himmelsrichtung an. Ich erwarte eine Revert in angemessener Zeit von dir - zu mindest für diesen Änderungssatz. Über andere unberechtigte Änderungen kannst du gern im Forum weiter diskutieren, wo ein Revert deiner Änderungssätze ebenfalls diskutiert wird: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64028 Gruß Gerd - geri-oc" geri-oc "direction ist ein verkehrter Schlüssel in Bezug auf die Wegrichtung von Verkehrszeichen. Die Änderungen sind alle falsch, da direction in Grad oder Himmelsrichtung angegeben wird." geri-oc "Also, the specification direction is correct only with degrees or compass. forward or backward is related to the direction of the path in OSM.I am for a revert of these changes (worldwide)." geri-oc "57,7274424, 16,5246249 ist nach den richtigen Angaben laut WIKI und JOSM-Plugin gemappt: 57,7273945, 16,5241181 hast du geändert. Es existieren zwei verschieden Schlüssel in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft und nach der alten Auswertung erscheint der zweite Node nicht mehr. Ich werden den CS reverten, falls du es nicht selbst machst. Deine Quelle Mapillary kann auch nicht stimmen, da einige Schilder gar nicht in Mapillary sind, sondern vor Ort erfasst wurden." geow "I asked the data working group to revert all changesets of user https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/yopaseopor/history where the cS comment is: "#fastag #traffic_signs Apply traffic_sign:direction tag to avoid problems with new iD editor as an agreement on tagging list“ Thanks geow" and then Streckenkundler "It sucks to adjust the data to the Editor. I have chosen this worde deliberately. This is the best way to scare mappers from OSM. In my opinion, all your changes must be reset immediately and promptly. Stinky Greetings..." Hey! I can be wrong but don't insult me! Streckenkundler "Whether iD is bad or not, I can't say. Your way of pushing your ideas was Bad. First a huge proposal, where hardly any one looks through and it is not yet Decided. Then quickly change data to match the programming of iD to create Facts. That's not how it works. Thanks to woodpeck for the Revert." Well, it was a disaster for me, people claiming "my head", etc.but... Crisis also means opportunity. So first of all: what is the people wants about traffic signs? It is the moment to have a big consensus and avoid these kind of episodes. So I send this message to the tag list. And I hope some day before or later we have a complete traffic sign scheme. But I have to say I'm sorry for the misunderstanding of what a consensus is in a tagging list... but What is a consensus in this list? yopaseopor On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:28 PM Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/09/2018 05:42 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > > It is not the first attempt to do that. Last days, with iD > > implementation and my message I have think it was the solution. Also I > > have waited some days and communicate to this list my intentions to > > adopt the proposed iD scheme. But when I start to do the > > modifications... People complains about it (I am sorry if there was some > > errors "translating" to the new scheme). > > Yes, DWG has also received complaints about these edits, and I am in the > process of reverting them. > > At the very least you should have established a consensus on this list > for the precise edit you want to perform. You should have said: I am > going to load objects tagged so-and-so, and I am going to apply these > modifications using these tools. (consensus doesn't mean everyone has > to be in favour, but you simply went ahead and changed things and wrote > in your changeset comment "#fastag #traffic_signs Apply > traffic_sign:direction tag to avoid problems with new iD editor as an > agreement on tagging list" which almost sounds like you were fixing a > bug and there was consensus, neither of which is strictly true. > > I'm not saying these edits cannot ever be made, but they can certainly > not be made in a buggy fashion after a half-hearted attempt at > discussion with no discernible outcome. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
