Herbert, All this is quite a lot and lacks clear issues to discuss. It also reads to me as if you would be writing down some text that has been developed by a larger group and you are writing done their view?
Keep in mind that little response to your lengthy text does not mean consent or endorsement. -- On 23 September 2019 8:35:53 pm AEST, "Herbert.Remi via Talk-au" <[email protected]> wrote: >What are the Facts? >> ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.’> >— Daniel Patrick Moynihan >I have decided to publish the discussion brief in two parts: “The >Facts” and then “The Issue”. This is me telling you I am going to do >that. I will send you the first part tomorrow. >"The Facts" is a summary of information from various relevant sources >in OSM Wiki, laws and regulations that apply to the ACT and any other >information of a factual nature which may help clarify “The Issue.” >In principle, the facts should be straight forward. >The first step is the pick through what we know and clarify, confirm >and remove any errors that have crept into the brief. This information >creates a level playing field of knowledge. >Your comments are more than welcome. To quote OSM Wiki, “be bold.” >If you think any of the information is in error, please try to provide >the correct information and preferably with a link, or at least mention >the source of this information. At every level in OSM, it always comes >back to the principle of “verifiable”. It is easy to get things wrong >when we are relying on memory. >Please stick to critiquing the facts and not getting off-topic. I will >process your feedback at the end of the calendar day and integrate the >information into the brief or correct it as is required. >The updated and corrected facts section will be published with the full >brief including “The Issue” on the following day. >The same is true for the quality definition. A word can have many >meanings. This is why the OSM technical definition is so valuable. >The purpose of the quality definition is to define in OSM terms, for >example, what a shared bike path is, within the context of its >information provided in “The Facts”. In other words, we cannot have a >quality definition that is illegal under ACT law or unfit for purpose. >Coming tomorrow 24/9/2019 >The Facts for Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back: >confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
